Until recently, my main workhorse cameras were the Leica Q3 and the Sony A7R IV, both full frame beasts shooting at a resolution of 60 megapixels. The Q3 was often my travel companion because of its compact size and its IP52 rating. I had brought the Q3 on various extreme trips from hiking on top of glaciers, to exploring glacier caves with curtains of dripping meltwater, to the Arctic winter conditions at below -20°C. The Q3 had survived everything I had thrown at it. If I wanted anything more than the fixed 28 mm lens of the Q3, then the Sony A7R IV would come out to play. It too had survived Artic winter conditions in Finnish Lapland, paired with Sony’s 24 mm f/1.4 GM lens for some aurora photography.

However, one complaint I regularly faced from the other half is that the gear I was lugging around was too heavy, especially if she needed to help me carry anything. Those full frame lenses are chunky things. One of my favourite Sony FE lenses is the Tamron 35-150 mm f/2-2.8, which weighs in at 1,165 grams. Paired with the Sony A7R IV, the camera body and lens totalled 1,830 grams. I loved the combination for the images I managed to get with the setup, but the weight did always make me wish I could have gear which allowed me to get print-worthy shots without the bulk.

I had bumped into OM Systems Ambassador Jimmy Cheng (check out Jimmy’s Instagram and YouTube channel) a couple of times in London and we got chatted a bit about the Micro Four Thirds ecosystem. I was intrigued, but not convinced yet as I still had some small-sensor prejudice. After chatting some more with Jimmy and also Emily Lowrey, aka Micro Four Nerds (check out Emily’s Instagram and YouTube channel), I finally decided to bite the bullet and grab myself a Micro Four Thirds camera. I had heard good things about the offerings from both Panasonic and OM System, but in the end I opted for the OM System OM-1 Mark II and OM 12-40 mm f/2.8 Pro II kit during the 2024 Black Friday sales due to the official IP53 rating which Panasonic does not offer. With the Black Friday cashback, the OM-1 Mark II kit was even cheaper than the original OM-1 kit, which made this choice a bit of a no-brainer. I added the Micro Four Thirds collection the OM 8 mm f/1.8 Fisheye Pro so I could attempt some wide sweeping landscapes. And maybe a dash of astrophotography too.

Even after buying the OM System’s flagship Micro Four Thirds camera, I was not wholly convinced, and so along came the Leica Q3, serving as a backup in case the Micro Four Thirds sensor was not able to cope with what I wanted to put the camera through. With the Q3 and the OM kit shoved unceremoniously into my rucksack, I boarded a British Airways flight to Vancouver on Christmas Eve and flew eastwards, and then north from Vancouver to Yellowknife where the temperature at points during my week’s stay in got as low as -37°C, which felt like -44°C according to the weather reports. Cold enough for hot water to freeze immediately when chucked out of a flask into the cold air.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Howard Cheng (@wherehowardgoes)

After a first outing with both the Q3 and the OM-1 Mark II, the Q3 never came out with me again. It took me all of maybe half-an-hour before I decided the OM-1 Mark II, paired with the OM 8 mm f/1.8 Fisheye Pro was the camera I was going to use to photograph the aurora that whole trip. Whilst the Q3 (and the Q2 before that) had been great companions, and rendered some beautiful aurora shots for me, the OM-1 Mark II was just a whole different experience.

Whilst the accuracy of the Leica Q cameras meant that I did not need to worry about checking the focus on the stars, simply focusing to the infinity marker on the lens and knowing it was fine, moving around in the dark meant there was still a chance that I could accidentally have shifted the focus, and then I would need to turn on my headtorch to check focus, which presented a whole new world of problems if you’re shooting in the pitch black of nature, and having to get your eyes readjusted to the light and then the dark again. With the OM-1 Mark II, I had Starry Sky autofocus which just focused on the stars automatically for me. And since the focus mechanism of the OM 8 mm f/1.8 Fisheye Pro is focus-by-wire, moving the focus ring would not actually change the focus settings.

Looking at the photos which the OM-1 Mark II was capturing for me, I did not even feel like I was losing out on anything due to having a smaller sensor, even shooting at ISO 1600 and upwards. I was also enjoying that very wide field of view with the OM 8 mm f/1.8 Fisheye Pro versus the fixed 28 mm f/1.7 lens of the Leica Q3. The one thing I did miss when using the Q3 was the ability to go wider. With 60 megapixels, I could crop in to get a digital zoom, and that is how Leica implements shooting at equivalent field of views of 35 mm, 50 mm, 75 mm and 90 mm on the Q3. But I could not go wider. The 8 mm Fisheye was just wide on a whole new lever, and allowed to me to capture much more of the aurora at any one time.

The buttons of the OM-1 Mark II also felt more tactile compared to the limited amount of buttons on the Q3, which was a dream when it came to shooting through gloves, as touching the camera with your bare hands was not possible after it had been sitting on the tripod out in conditions that felt like -44°C for over an hour.

The shot which sealed the deal for me with the OM-1 Mark II was a photograph of the Milky Way which I shot from a frozen lake in Yellowknife. Technically, I knew that smaller sensor was likely to mean less details, but even at ISO 6400, the amount of stars which I managed to capture with the Micro Four Thirds sensor made me realise that I could do everything which I wanted to with the OM-1 Mark II. Sure, I did not have 60 megapixels to play with, but I never needed 60 megapixels in the first place since I do not usually print anything bigger than around A3 size.

The details the OM-1 Mark II managed to render in the night sky, with the Andromeda Galaxy and the Pleiades cluster clearly visible made me realise that the OM-1 Mark II is quite the non-full frame powerhouse. I was very happy with the amount of stars which I managed to capture, and it was comparable to the shot of the Milky Way which I shot with the Q3 in Norway. In fact, with both shots being taken at ISO 6400, I actually think the OM-1 Mark II shot looks cleaner.

If I really needed more resolution, the OM-1 Mark II comes with a high res mode which can offer images at 25 megapixels, 50 megapixels, or 80 megapixels. Granted that to take the perfect shot, you need either very fast shutter speed or a subject which will not move, but I have used that functionality shooting architecture giving me beautiful images, but with files which are far too large compared to my actual needs.

Shortly after I returned from Canada, I headed to Finland in search of more aurora, but sadly the weather prevented a really good aurora sighting. But the only camera I brought with me to Finnish Lapland was the OM-1 Mark II with the 12-40 mm f/2.8 Pro II and the 8 mm f/1.8 Fisheye Pro. When I got back from Finland, my full frame gear swiftly went to MPB, giving me nearly £5,000 in extra spending money.

Okay, those of you who know me would have caught on that I wasn’t quite telling the truth, as not quite all my full frame gear went to MPB, as I still have a Leica M camera, but that is just a whole different topic altogether! Apart from my Leica M, I have fully immersed myself into the Micro Four Thirds ecosystem now. No one in the photojournalism world has cared that I am not using a full frame camera anymore, and my back and neck definitely love my decision to use Micro Four Thirds rather than full frame.

In the end, it was not just the weight that I left behind with my full frame gear. It was the idea that great photography demands it. And under the auroras at -37°C, the OM-1 Mark II proved that sometimes, the gear we all think we need is simply overkill.