Robin Wong explores the Olympus Zuiko Digital 50mm F2 Macro lens, showcasing its capabilities as both a macro and portrait lens. He demonstrates this lens’s performance when mounted on the OM System OM-1 body, particularly highlighting shooting portraits.

Key Points

• Overview of the Olympus 50mm F2 Macro: Celebrated for its dual functionality as a macro and portrait lens.
• Adapter Necessity: An adapter is required to use the lens on modern camera bodies.
• Autofocus Performance: Discusses the autofocus capabilities and how they affect shooting experience.
• Image Quality: Various image samples illustrate the lens’s sharpness and color accuracy.
• Longer Focal Lengths: Comparisons made with other lens lengths and their respective applications.
• Lens Flaws: An honest assessment of the shortcomings of the Olympus 50mm F2 Macro.
• Recommendation: Conclusion on whether the lens is a worthwhile investment for budding photographers.

Conclusion

The Olympus Zuiko Digital 50mm F2 Macro lens stands out as a versatile tool for photographers, offering excellent image quality and performance for both macro and portrait work. Despite a few flaws, this lens is recommended for those looking to enhance their photography game.

Sarah Teng tested the OM-3 for the Adorama channel:

She loves the OM System OM-3 because it feels nostalgic, is extremely portable, delivers surprisingly clean and sharp images despite its Micro Four Thirds 20MP sensor, and performs exceptionally well during travel. She emphasizes that sensor size doesn’t matter as much as people think—especially for social media—and praises the color science, weather sealing, compact footprint, and film-like styling.

Her main takeaway:
The OM-3 is a fantastic travel and everyday photography camera that produces great results, feels great to use, and is worth recommending—even at the $2,000 price point.

You can take epic shots with a tiny inexpensive MFT camera like the Lumix G100.

OM 50-200mm f/2.8 PRO at BHphoto, Amazon, Adorama, OM US store, Fotokoch, Foto Erhardt, Calumet, WexUK, Clifton, OM European stores.

Robin Wong explains why Micro Four Thirds is the best system for insect macro photography.

The key advantages:

• 2× magnification from the crop factor gives more reach and detail in macro work.

• More depth of field helps keep the entire insect in focus (not just the eyes).

• Powerful image stabilization makes high-magnification shooting much easier and steadier.

• The Olympus 60mm f/2.8 Macro lens is outstanding—sharp, light, weather-sealed, and very affordable.

• Small, lightweight bodies make long macro sessions, hikes, and fieldwork far more comfortable.

• You don’t need high-end or new gear—even a 10-year-old entry-level Olympus Pen EPL7 can produce excellent macro results with the right technique and lighting.

His core message:

Skill, light, and technique matter far more than sensor size or expensive gear. Micro Four Thirds remains an incredibly capable and practical system for macro shooters.

I don’t think the OM 150–600mm has many fans, but Emily from MicroFourNerds argues that this lens still has its place.

It’s heavy and not an internal-zoom design, but for birders, wildlife shooters, or anyone needing extreme reach at a much lower price than full-frame super-telephotos, it offers exceptional value — especially with current OM System cashback and extended warranty deals.

150-600mm at Amazon US&CA&EU, BHphoto, Adorama, Om Digital, FotoErhardt, Calumet, WexUK. OM Germany, OM UK, OM, Italy, OM France.

I honestly forgot Kodak once made a Micro Four Thirds camera! Tom Calton tested the Kodak S-1 that was announced nearly 14 years ago.

Quick Conclusion:

The Kodak PixPro S1 is one of the strangest and most obscure mirrorless cameras ever made. Released in 2014, it entered the Micro Four Thirds market with some interesting ideas but failed almost immediately.

• What was good: Micro Four Thirds mount compatibility, decent 16MP RAW files, fun Kodachrome and Ektachrome color profiles, very cheap on the used market.
• What was bad: Extremely plasticky build, very slow autofocus and overall performance, long write times, blackout after every shot, poor video quality, no RAW+JPEG when using film profiles, weak kit lenses.
• Why it flopped: Kodak’s brand had lost credibility, marketing was almost nonexistent, competition from Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, and Fujifilm was overwhelming, and early units even suffered shutter failures.

Final Verdict: A fun and rare collector’s camera, but not practical for real photography today. Kodak could have built a Fujifilm-style revival based on its film heritage, but instead delivered a slow, plasticky, and quickly forgotten camera.