The REAL Strength of Micro Four Thirds?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2024
- So just what is the point of Micro Four Thirds in 2024? Is it the Size and Weight? The Price? Or something else entirely...
Links that help me but cost you nothing!
Filmconvert discount link
www.filmconvert.com/purchase/...
or use code RTFILM
www.dehancer.com/
Use Code: RTFILM for 10% off
Ulanzi
www.ulanzi.com?aff=1296
Support me in making more and better videos / rhettthompsonfilm
0:00 Micro Four Thirds Misconceptions
1:04 Size and Weight
2:24 Price
4:42 The TRUE Strength of MFT 
Кино
As a Micro 4/3 user, I can point to the advantages I find: SMALLER LENS SIZE is number one. I do not care about the body size. I care a LOT about how many lenses I can carry, and at 68, how long I can carry them without tiring. LOWER PRICE LENSES: There is less glass for any field of view and maximum aperture standard. VIDEO FEATURES: Lumix rules here. The video price/performance ratio is about as good as it gets. AUDIO FEATURES: There are few mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras as reasonably priced as the G9 II that do what it does with clean four channel audio. DEPTH OF FIELD: Some of us need MORE depth of field and not less, based on what we do. Micro 4/3 gives you two stops deeper depth of field at a given aperture for the same field of view (equivalent focal length). That's not going to appeal to some users, but it does to me. Good rant! Versatility IS a huge reason to keep using it. I like all four common digital interchangeable lens camera formats - for different reasons and use cases. Pick what works for ya.
I agree, the extra 2 stops of depth of field are incredibly useful sometimes in my product photography
1. Lens are smaller compared to APS-C only if you don't take crop factor into account. If you apply crop factor to the aperture, than f1.2 MFT lens is not any smaller than f2.8 full frame lens
2. There are APS-C lenses from Sigma, Tamron, Viltrox and other manufacturers which are cheaper than Panasonic/Olympus counterparts at the same physical aperture. Example: OM System 20mm f1.4 is actually more expensive than Viltrox 27mm f1.2, even though the Viltrox will give you more than one stop improvement in low light noise
3. Saying that more depth of field is is improvement doesn't make any sense. Just stop down your aperture on a larger sensor camera and you will get the same result
l
I've been using Panasonic MFT cameras exclusively as my mirrorless system since 2014, I've never used full frame. I like run-n-gun style shooting. I like the zoom of camcorders but also the more "cinematic" look of better f-stops; MFT provides all this. Micro Four Thirds is the ideal system for video (less DOF makes focusing easier), which is what I primarily shoot. For travel, I can take the Leica 8-18, Leica 12-60 and Leica 50-200 for a very lightweight combination. For chase scenes where DOF isn't critical but better stabilization may be, the new Leica 12-35 and 35-100. I also own the 10-25 and 25-50 which are literally a killer combo for serious video and film making work; movies tend to be shot at f/3.5-5.6 full frame equivalent, the 10-25 and 25-50 give a full frame DOF of f/3.4 wide open and are basically ideal for movie making. I also enjoy handheld wildlife ... I own the 100-400 as well as the 200mm f/2.8 and both teleconverters. The 200mm f/2.8 is a glorious lens for handheld wildlife in all lighting conditions. But it gets better ... I recently finished purchasing the last two Voigtlander f/0.95 lenses. I own all 5. These lenses give an f/1.9 full frame DOF equivalent which is already overkill, they are absolutely amazing in low light. MFT is also better for macro videography and photography with the 2x crop factor being applied to magnification. With the Laowa 50mm f/2.8 2X macro you get 4X macro ... 10.4X macro with the 2.6X pixel to pixel in 1080p, then of course upscale to 4K with Topaz Video AI. The Laowa 6mm f/2.0 is 12mm full frame equivalent, so the system goes plenty wide. I finally have the full MFT experience ... the portable camcorder like lenses with long zoom (12-60 and 50-200 are highlights), the workhorse corporate and film making lenses (10-25 and 25-50 are highlights), the handheld wildlife experience (200mm f/2.8 is amazing), and for the full frame vintage look, the 5 f/0.95 Voigtlander lenses. Even if Panasonic discontinued the system tomorrow, I'd still stick with it until my equipment falls apart. I own 3 GH5 IIs (4K60 10-bit 4:2:0 so can use VLOG-L) and love the system, I use it professionally for my business. Like you in a way eluded to ... my shoots aren't "canceled" by the client because I'm shooting on MFT. Knowing what you're doing goes a long way :)
Some bodies may be a little beefy but the lenses...that is the unbelievable strength in M43: Weight, size and quality. When I left full frame I had a 24-105 f/4 and a 70-200 f/4L. I could neither afford nor wanted to carry the large 2.8 70-200 or the 24-70 2.8. I can carry my Lumix 35-100 2.8 in my jacket pocket! I also must say that the Olympus 12-40 2.8 is a dream lens as well.
Agreed, any season where I’m wearing a jacket the 35-100 is fully pocketable. The 100-300 can go in the other pocket and I can have 24-600 without a camera bag on a walk.
I'm puzzled why neither Olympus nor Panasonic don't have more weight in the Street Photography scene.
M4/3 is a perfect system for street photography, but I don't get it why the people seems to only want to buy Fujifilm's X100vi or Ricoh's GRIII for it
Maybe they don't think it's a lucrative enough market, and not releasing new good small cameras. I know the Ricoh GR is popular, but it feels like the street photography scene isn't very new-gear-focused or tech-demanding, but I think they're failing by not even trying. A new Pen-F from OM or a new GM 1 or 5 from panasonic could be huge hits.
Marketing 🤷🏼♂️
Too be honest fujifilm is more ergonomic. My X70 runs rings around my GX85.
For me, Micro Four Thirds has always been about compact size and advanced (but not pro) photo-video features. The main advantage is being able to carry the camera in a very small backpack or even in a large pocket while still maintaining high quality. Additionally, the small size allows you to use the camera in places where a larger, more professional-looking setup couldn't be used or would attract too much attention.
I just came back to mft from full frame. I still keep my canon 5d with 85mm, but I do 80% of my work with mft.
I wish I could explain but I just am drawn to the format. Full frame has its place but much of the time I’m reaching for an MFT body
When MFT was new I bought the GH1 and a few lenses, starting with the 14-140, 7-14, 20, 100-300, 45 macro. It cost me thousands so it was never about price. The thing that sold me was the EVF, and video abilities. Lens size (not camera size) was icing on the cake, but not as important as camera capabilities.
I had Canon full frame as well back then, and bought Sony along the way, and about 2 ½ years ago I sold my Canon gear. I love my Sony gear, but Lumix is my main gear. Versatility and capability is a good way to describe MFT. I would never even consider Sony for shooting animations, and extreme tele and macro are MFT strengths. The Sony's are good for vlogging but not much else. They don't have the feature sets that I require. They are excellent travel cameras, but getting serious I equate with getting MFT.
The reason I use micro 4/3 is simply for the reach. You get twice the reach at half the size. The GH5s was my second interchangeable lens camera after the GH4. I bought the GH5s the day it came out and I still use it on almost every event shoot for the low light and long range capabilities. I bought the G9 for the IBIS and for wildlife photography, but the autofocus could never keep up with birds in flight. I bought the G9ii recently so I can take photos of wildlife (specifically to keep up with birds), but I just used it with the 100-400mm Panasonic lens for a concert and the autofocus was so good that I'll likely keep using it as my closeup for events over the GH5s. I'm keeping the G9 as a backup camera because it can film 4k 10bit 422 V-log (with the paid upgrade) and I will pair it with the 14mm f2.5 pancake lens for my landscape shots while shooting wildlife with the G9ii paired with the 100-400mm. That way I don't have to switch lenses in the field (which is typically sand dunes for me because I live by the Indiana Dunes National Park) and risk scratching my sensor. I mostly shoot on the full frame S1 and S5 for typical corporate work, but the micro 4/3 cameras are a great backup as well as great for the extended reach during events.
Man, that was excellent! I agree 100%. This really needed to be said and you’re the perfect person to do so 🙂
I’m glad you think so! And yea I just got a little curious of what does MFT really stand for these days and the more I thought about it the more I wanted to make this video!
The real strength of MFT sensors is readout speed. Smaller sensor have way less rolling shutter and easier to telephoton and maintain focus.
For broadcast and corporate events and Live those are very important.
FF is a real headache for cameraman on live sets... Try to do a close-up on a professional dancer 100ft away from the scene with a 300mm lens on FF frame. Good luck. You'll have to go f11-f13... On an MFT you'll be at 150mm f5.6 and maintain your lens resolution and light transmission. Most lens peak performance are around f4-f6.3. at f11+ you introduce vignette, C.A. issues.
A clients who pays top dollars 💰 for a multi camera event coverage doesn't care if you FF cameras if a third of the show is out of focus and wobbly...
That's why broadcast cameras, PTZ camera and most cine camera are below S35 formats, some even still use 1/2" sensors.
I went with the relatively bulky OM-1, because I'm mostly a telephoto shooter. The size advantages are pretty apparent to me - I tried to re-create the setup that want in several FF systems, but I always found that I'd have to compromise much more than on M43.
Also, for telephoto shooters like me, the price advantage quickly goes to M43. For example, the 300mm f/4 or 150-400 f/4.5 are neither big nor bulky for what they are.
Also also, people like to think that size is just length. Sorry to break it to you, but girth matters a lot ;)
I do photogrammetry for 3D reproductions: MFT is the best for this work. My needs are more depth of field and tac sharp pictures. The IBIS and 2x depth are an advantage in my work. Also being able to take 100 megapixel pictures with the GH six and still have lots of depth to field is a huge bonus when I need it.
Man I really need to do a video on just how good and helpful that 100mp mode is
I think you nicely summed up the case for MFT. I shoot wildlife, mainly birds, as a hobby and the 100-400mm (200-800mm in 35mm speak) giving me a lot of reach in a very lightweight package. Recently I started playing around with the 2x digital converter built into my Lumix G9 and I've been surprised how good the results have been if you shoot JPEGS. I'd love to see Lumix refine this feature like they did in the Leica V-Lux 114 (a spinoff of the Lumix FZ1000) where Leica refers to it as I-Zoom, a processor enhanced digital zoom. It works very well, giving that bridge camera a very useable 800mm reach. Just FYI, I shot full-frame gear for all of my 40+ years as a working press photographer and greatly appreciate the reduced weight of MFT.
I just still love my gh5😊
I miss mine all the time
Great video. Micro Four Thirds and Lumix for life. Never looked back.
I own the S5 for 1.5 YRs. My first camera. I just found out that sony only has one mount system shared between the APSC and Full Frames which makes sharing lenses possible even if with major caveats at times. It is still an option.
You can buy an apsc body and stock up on full frame lenses as you build your business and then upgrade the body when you feel the need. Have to different sensor sizes that use the same lenses as A and B camera. Or vice versa. Get a big boy body and build a career on cheaper lenses and then expand.
It bothers me that we can't do that at lumix. Haven't even found adapting tutorials for either so it just becomes so expensive to own different body sizes. Over at lumix.
Are you talking about micro four thirds and L mount sharing a mount somehow? Unfortunately it’s not really possible.
I get this advantage for Sony but I don’t think it really applies for Lumix they just have a different strategy
I got into MFT last year. I came from Nikon DSLRs. Now I have several MFT bodies (OM-1, E-M1III, Pen-F, E-M5II, E-PL9) and an embarrassing amount of glass. I love the system. Its fantastic.
I recently went back to my Nikon D850 with an older 85mm f1.4D lens with older flashes for team portraits that I did and it worked amazingly well. Probably better than if I shot it with the OM-1. That 47MP sensor on the D850 is hard to beat...as is Nikon's TTL technology. It just works. No fancy global shutter or state-of-the-art AF technology needed.
That all said, everything else I do is geared towards MFT. It's just more portable, computationally rich, the build quality is excellent, and the cost of bodies and lenses is well below what you get on the APS-C and FF side.
I'm a proponent of all systems; although, I lean towards MFT. In the end its about taking great photos, not about having the latest gear. Moreover, the gear we have from the last 5-10 years in all formats is AMAZING. Paying top dollar for the latest gear is not quite what it was a decade ago. Any cost-benefit analysis will show this.
Buy used gear in whatever formats you like and be happy.
Not just versatility, but also speed. Nothing can match the G9ii's hybrid performance at its price. As you said, 4K120 alone is almost unheard of anywhere. But man that 10-25 is massive. Still, wish I had it!
I know! I remember in the GH6 days all these Sony guys were telling me the Sony A7siii and monitor was better and I was like sure that’s a 4-4.5k setup.
M43 is versatile, but I do use it for its size. The pro bodies are not really smaller than FF, but both the pro and non pro lenses are still a lot smaller in their respective classes. On top of that, many of the consumer grade lenses are capable enough to produce professional level images, so it's possible to carry a very comprehensive lens/camera combo in a much smaller package than any other format. This makes m43 really handy from a mobility standpoint. And where image quality is a priority, I can potentially take that compact kit and add lighting while losing nothing to FF in terms of overall footprint.
That only true if you don't apply crop factor to the aperture. 20mm f1.4 MFT is not any smaller than 40mm f2.8 FF lens. Example: OM System 20mm f1.4 pro is 63.4 x 61.7 mm and weights 247 g, Sony 40mm f2.5 is 68 x 50.4mm and weights 173 g. These two lenses have the same field of view but Sony lens gathers 1/3 stop more light
@branimirteodorovic2297 Crop factor doesn't affect exposure, just DoF and angle of view. Given equal exposure settings, you get the same image on an M43 with a 20mm lens as an FF with a 40mm lens, except it'll have twice the DoF and half the bokeh. So in practice, m43 lets you use smaller lenses to get the same shot maybe 80% of the time. In those 20% fringe cases, you can deal by taking the L in DoF or by using lights - which you can - b/c you use smaller lenses.
@@francishwlee The images will be equally exposed, but FF lens will project a circle which is twice as wide, which means there will be four times the total amount the light reaching the sensor and therefore the image will have four times less noise on a FF camera compared to MFT camera with the same aperture. You cannot just ignore the noise level
@@branimirteodorovic2297 You're making the differences out to be a lot more than than really are. In practice, when there's good light, there isn't a big difference b/w formats, and in bad lighting, m43 users can manage with lighting b/c the format lets you bring more stuff. Also, noise reduction software is amazing now. So the practical gap just isn't that big. If YT and IG are your main outlets, the difference basically doesn't exist.
Obviously FF brings its benefits, but M43 has its own. But these only really come into play when you actually push your gear to their limits, which most people don't do.
@@francishwlee Using that logic you don't need a fast lens at all. Just use magical noise reduction software and post images on YT and IG. You can even use a point and shoot camera. You won't see the difference on a smartphone screen anyway.
Bought the G9ii over the S5 for the 4k 60/120 without cropping
Also, I can fit all my primes and a zoom in a small, light travel bag. Also, the IBIS is incredible.
All valid! That 4k60 crop is tough for me even if some people don’t seem to mind
Well said.That's why I use m43 for 14 years.Now I enjoy my G9ii.Excellent images and features ,reach, reasonable price,small lenses,light camera.Ideal package .
Thank you for making this video as it puts into context what makes MFT unique. I bought a GX85 when a friend mentioned he was taking one on vacation and decided to try one. I had a blast with it. I have picked up both the G9 and G9 M2 as well. One day I went out with both my Nikon FF and the G9 M2 for an outing. I had pictures from the G9 M2 that I thought I had shot with the Nikon before I checked the metadata. I also love that if I am feeling sore, I can select small lenses to compensate. Lastly, there are some wonderful Panasonic-Leica lenses such as the 200mm 2.8 or the 25-50mm 1.7 that are a joy to shoot with.
Godzilla ftw. When it comes to M43, I wish more people focused on form factor than just “size” - personally I usually want a camera with a solid grip that fills my hand completely and that usually means it’s larger like a GH6, but other times I don’t want a grip for that ultra low profile slim shape like the GX9. The form factor is related to size but I wish the differences were even more dramatic and experimental.
YES! So bang on. Versatility! When Lumix brings out its next ultra compact camera anyone with a mft lens collection is going to have so many amazing options. I want a g100ii to go with my g9ii
I went to full frame and then came back. The lens options and prices also are so good. Eventually I’ll love to add an s5ii to my collection, but I’m in no rush.
@@nolannatashaTV one full frame camera is nice to have I won’t like but if I had to choose as of now I’d still choose MFT
M43 is versatile but, as you yourself pointed out, price is also important. Size? Yes! Have you seen the Lumix 35-100 f4-5.6? Some of us who like smaller cameras moan a lot because Lumix only make the G100 these days. We need a GX9 II. That camera hits a sweet spot for many.
Ideally we need a full range of cameras like Lumix used to provide. Something for everyone, then m43 can be truly versatile.
I still want an gx9/10 with pdaf 25mp sensor
Give me a phase detect lx100!!!
Brilliant, Rhett, thanks my Good Brother! Cheers :)
For me personally m4/3 is all about size, size and size. And did I say size! Panasonic has completely forgotten about that for photography. Hell, they have pretty much abandoned the m4/3 photographer. It’s just OMS now for cameras for me.
most if not all APC are £2000 now ad have been for a few yeears
I love my GH5s and GH5. I push it when filming outside with variable ND filters. But I do wonder how much I could push my filmmaking with a S1H or S5ii. Espcecially in low light. Though I can't wait to see the new GH7 when it hopefully comes out later this year.
Most of the advantages you mention have more to do with the company behind the cameras than the sensor size. Lumix puts many of the same features in their full frame cameras too. For me, the biggest strength of M43 as a format is the compact size of telephoto lenses. As you say, I don't see a need for the cameras to be that much smaller, since our hands are a certain size anyways. In general, it does seem that M43 systems (cameras plus lenses) are less expensive than FF, even when comparing the pro-grade lenses, so that is a general strength. With the whole equivalence thing, M43 and FF are essentially equal in terms of image quality when you aren't going for razor-thin DoF.
Of course it's all about the lenses (although there are other advantages as well)! The primary reason I made MFT my primary system is that it's the only way for me to have a 12-800mm EFL range available without needing a huge pack, tripod, etc. while not sacrificing significant IQ*, while gaining greater DoF, superior IBIS, more speed (not that I really use it that often), amazing video capabilities (which I use even more rarely), etc. You know the drill. I generally carry a couple of G9s (I and II), six lenses, filters, batteries, etc., and my entire pack (usually a PD everyday backpack zip 20L) with all that stuff and more weighs about 13 lb/6kg. My largest lens, the Leica 100-400, is 3.3 x 6.8"/83 x 171.5 mm and weighs 2.2 lb/985 g (plus it has a minimum focusing distance of 4.27'/1.3m for an effective magnification of 0.5X--compare that with "FF")...
*Although certain "FF" cameras have slightly better "numbers" (e.g., DR, but only in some cases), but it's really a matter of how much meaningless overkill you want (in exchange for neck/back pain, less portability, and higher cost). Nobody (even the photographer) is going to be able to tell any difference in prints (the only REAL photographs) made with larger format cameras. Period/full stop.
Panasonic seems only focus only bigger body recently. I also like the lx100 concept. If they put all the new video spec, codec and auto focus there, man I will buy that for sure. They not release gx85 successor either. I feel like Panasonic is focus mostly on their full frame market now.
I would love some more small cameras to be sure. Full frame, MFT or even in the lx100 family!
It's kinda still about size. Let's look at the new 150 to 600. It's a big lens, but imagine that being 1200 mm on a full frame. You'll be holding a bazooka like the Cannon 1200. So essentially, most lenses are (or can) be half the size of their full frame counter parts. The Camera bodies however have been getting bigger and bigger. There really isn't the need for them to but that seems to be the direction of Panasonic and Olympus/OM. They would benefit themselves to go back to their roots
Size and the ability for them to be small is A benefit but I don’t think it’s the ONLY benefit but it certainly doesn’t hurt.
As someone with giant banana fingers, I actually appreciate the larger bodies, although I do like the ability to use the same lenses on small bodies when I want to travel light. Also, I think the lenses could be even LESS than half the size with a little more effort. The Pana/Leica 100-400 is the second smallest 100-400 lens I know of. The only thing smaller is the Canon RF 100-400, which is slower(f/5.6-8) and not weather sealed. So, not only does the P/L give 200-800 field of view, but it's still smaller than almost all FF 100-400 lenses. The new OM System 150-600 is cool, but it was already cool when it was called the Sigma 150-600 Sport. I don't begrudge them modding a known, good design, but had they started from scratch it would have been smaller, faster, or both.
Excellent! I agree. 🙂
I’m glad! I was worried this might be a little controversial
Your "film-world-batman-godzilla" analogy was something I could not grasp. Perhaps those who watch a lot of cinema understand but then there are those who do not.
There is a fair amount of expressed desire for a new small mft camera. I have a gx9 and for me anything smaller than that would be too fiddly and have too small controls to be user friendly for me. When I going to spend a few hours with the GX9 I install a grip from JJC to give something for my right hand to grasp. I have a G80 and G9 as well and for me a G80/G90 sort of body with as many features as possible ftom the G9 ii would be ideal giving a mid-sized mft camera.
Probably best take i have heard. Thank you sir
I’m shocked people are responding well. It feels like I was reading a script but this was all off the dome!
Hard to find gh6 on the used market still
There’s a few on KEH and mpb last I checked!
Yes not selling mine
Great video! Side note: raise up your light and aim it down at you to get rid of the glare on your glasses.
Maybe my super obvious soft box grid is part of my brand
I think you missing the point when people complain about size, yes the gh5 was big and cost like 2k usd, but at the time you have cheaper smaller options like g7, g85, gx8, nowadays the release of new mft camera bodies have become very sporadic since their focus is in full frame, the only cheaper alternatives to the g9ii are the aging g95 and g100, both have a 8 years old sensor, crop 4k and the g100 lack ibis. There is not much upgrade path if you dont want the size of the g9ii, and the g9ii has to compete with the sometimes cheaper and almost identical s5ii. Many people want a g95 ii or gx9 ii with 80 or 90% of the features of the gh6/gh9ii at around 1000-1200 usd price range.
This is also a great point! I’d love to see smaller entry cams at this point
Your lights are reflecting off your glasses. ;-P
🤯
I just recently upgraded from my Lumix G9 ( version 1 ) to the s5iiX primary for the updated autofocus and shooting options.
I really loved micro four thirds it had amazing image quality and my lens selection was diverse.
However for most of this year I was loaned the Sony A7iv and it made me realize that for my workflow mainly in low light full frame was needed so the best option for my budget was the s5iiX and I got it with my student discount 😂 so it was a plus.
I recently picked up a G7 and three lenses for about $600. There are deals out there.
Very interesting
Love the AF on my GH6 compared to my old G85
I never bought mft because it is small. I bought it because they are good cameras
Such a good topic…as to the strengths of the M4/3 system
1. You get more telephoto reach with less of a lens (I use vintage 70-300 Kit lenses from the 1990s, purchased for $30!
2. You can adapt almost ANY lens mount, ever to M/43
3. You can get a TILT/SHIFT adapter and turn almost any (Nikon F mount) lens into a tilt/shift lens (even variable focal length/zoom lenses…not something you can do with full-frame, unless you use a medium format lens)
You nailed it….thanks for clarifying. I’d love to find a teleconverter for my 50-200 for exactly this reason!
We can always dream! That would be a great addition I wasn’t aware the teleconverters don’t work for it
Sorry? Was that a typo?
@@andrewp1513 I thought you were implying the teleconverters dont exist for the 50-200 but I think you maybe meant you just don’t have one yet
Oh I see. I meant…find a second hand lumix teleconverter. I thought you were saying that they were crap! Thanks for the clarification
The Panasonic 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters (I own both) work officially for 3 Lumix lenses: The 200mm f/2.8, the 50-200mm f/2.8-4.0 and the new 100-400 II. I own those lenses too. Just sold off my old 100-400 and buying the new 100-400 II :)
No one even knows what full frame is…truer words were never spoken!
Even the bigger M43 kits are smaller then their full frame counter parts.
Take a GH camera or OM1 camera with the OM1 12-40Mm f2.8 it's still smaller then the full frame 24-70mm f2.8
I know full frame f4 lens are small but then aauto focus can take a hit in low light.
Fucking brilliant! Well said!
For me, mft has only two substantial strengths. And this is LENSES, DESIGNED ESPECIALLY FOR MFT and STABILIZER, that is able to shoot hand held at 1-4 seconds shutter speeds.
I will elaborate more on lenses... There are some lenses that are unique. And there are quite alot of them actually. Olympus 12-100/4, Panasonic 100-300 II, Panasonic 10-25 and 25-50/1.7, Olympus and Panasonic 42.5/1.2, e.t.c. These lenses has the combination of quality/size/weight/speed that simply CANNOT be reproduced as FF lenses!
So lets hope we will see more lenses like this and NOT stupid FF copycats like Olympus 100-400 and Olympus 150-600. Rebadging FF lenses kills MFT system!
You are basing your arguments about m43 covering only Lumix and not taking Olympus/ OM Digital Solutions into account. The idea of m43 stems from Olympus idea with camera sizes should be small. Panasonic took part into build products in m43. But size is a legimate argument of the m43 because is the original idee from Olympus. You never shows any Olympus camera. You are talking only video and not photo. Panasonic embraced m43 to use it for camcorders but this failed and then pushed video in their m43 cameras.
It's as simple as this - you can't beat the physics on the glass. A Nikon D750 with an 85mm 1.4 if pretty much the same size as a Panasonic GH5 with a 42.5mm F1.2. While the focal length works out in the wash, you lose some of the aperture bokeh. I owned both and the difference in weight saved was less than the extra batteries carried for the GH5.
Using similar technology, to get the same number of pixels in a smaller sensor means that less light is actually hitting each individual pixel. If I have a 24 megapixel FX sensor and you have a 24MP M43 sensor, 1/4 as many photos land on each pixel. Assuming the sensors are roughly the same tech level, the M43 gets more noise and less signal by comparison. that 42.5mm F1.2 was an amazing lens.
Now a Panasonic GH5 is much newer than say a D3, and the advances in sensor manufacture could offset that to some theoretical limit, but any advantages in the M43 sensor could also be used on the FX sensor.
And, while using said GH5, the lenses that were 'just as good' as the full frame fast zooms, a) weren't just as good, b) gave up aperture as noted above (multiply the cop factor times the maximum aperture), and were really close to the same size. (3.1" vs 3.5", 6.3" vs 7.5", 2lb vs 3lb for a 70-200 equivalent.
I missed my D750 every time the lights got less than full daylight in the GH5. The Panasonic simply couldn't make as pretty a picture in low light. I gave up and went back to full frame after a year of trying.