Forty years ago I used a medium format Hasselblad for weddings and portraits, a 4x5 view camera for landscapes and a 35mm SLR for travel slides. Each format had its strengths and appropriate uses. Nobody ever criticized my use of different formats for different purposes. Now I use a MFT LUMIX G9, a Fuji X100f and a Nikon Z6. Each of the three different formats has its strengths and weaknesses but more importantly each individual camera has its pros and cons. I use each because I enjoy and appreciate each one. My only regret is that as I get older, well past 70, the three different menu systems occasionally cause a bit of confusion. Photographers, not cameras, are responsible for the quality of the photos. Use what you like.
It’s refreshing to hear someone like myself a professional from the film era, applying the logic of tools for the job, as in film so In sensors. I find it sometimes quite embarrassing listens to some of these guys putting one format against another, claiming to be a professional... So nicely put, I’m not always as polite as that.
The formats in film era did make sense because one cannot get rid of the film grain. But in digital photography one can make sensors of photodiodes as small as possible because simply photons have zero size. So that 100MP micro43 sensor is feasible today. And that’s the reason the diversity of formats losing sense.
@@sstansm7f Your basic premise, that the use of different film formats was simply because of the film's grain, is incorrect. The characteristics and capabilities of the cameras and their lenses were the determining factor. One would never shoot a wedding with a 4x5 camera or vacation slides with a medium format camera. Each format system had its uses. Digital cameras and their lens' characteristics make full frame more successful for portrait work and MFT often better for long telephoto work, for example. Naturally, there are other differences, also, that impact a photographer's choice of format. There is a place for each.
@@sstansm7f the single sharpest lens that I have owned and used is my current Nikon 50mm f/1.8 Z and a close second is my Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4. Either lens blows away the best of the 1970’s lenses, the Nikon , or Zeiss, or Rhodenstock lenses on their different format cameras. Even the Leica lenses of the 1990’s don’t quite match up. I speak only of lenses that I owned and enjoyed in their time. Again, the size of the format matters much less than the capability of the camera and lens to do the job you need to do at the time.
@@mattisulanto i love my MFT but if you go after the shop they always recommend going for a bigger sensor. but I wonder if you take that much better pictures with a full frame. I just bought a new lens for the MFT the Panasonic 42.5 F1.7 I am curious.
I agree with you totally! In my 30 year career I've used almost every format made! Still own & use my MFT, FF, and Medium Format cameras most weeks. Like a shoe or a glove, many have different purposes. Living in the Bahamas you won't need winter boots or heavy gloves whereas in Alaska, tennis shoes and baseball gloves are not needed. So I say look at your situation, your budget, lifestyle, and buy whatever works BEST FOR YOU! Most of all have FUN & ENJOY the ability to capture a moment in time you can cherish forever! No matter what you do or say... fact, fiction, documentation or an opinion, your will get the haters. There are a lot of unhappy, angry, unbalanced people out there and It's just a way of life in RUclips land :)
I am sticking with M4/3 for the long haul. I just don't like the price, size or weight of FF cameras. I used to shoot Canon FF but I'm so happy I dumped that system over 8 years ago. No regrets. I like being nimble with M4/3 and I don't need to impress my clients with big cameras. The final result is what they look at.
I have bought a canon rp fullframe camera, and the nikon z6 and i have to say the lumix g9 with the lenses of Leica 15mm, 12-60mm and sigma 16mm, 35mm you really can not see big differences in image quality even in night photography
I simply don't buy that. There is a SIGNIFICANT noise difference at higher ISOs between FF and APS-C, nevermind MFT. If you're shooting on a tripod at low ISOs then I wouldn't expect to see a difference, but if you're shooting hand-held at higher ISOs then no way are the images similar.
@@cooloox do not fight 🤝, the stabilizer of the lumix g9 is really incredible. and much better than the Nikon z6 that I have, it helps you work in low iso and this is a bonus for the mft cameras not to have any fear even at night while the ff even with a stabilizer you must have iso mounted at night is missing .... each system has its own way of use.and the only mistake I made was listening to and watching videos that say only ff and all but not worth it. but when I heard and saw the main one making the videos with the Lumix G9, I went and tried it and only held it in my hand and pressed the button for the first photo, the speed and the quality that it had in the image I had no words. simple you have to change the way you work the camera a bit because it is not the same as ff and I who work it at iso 100 to 1200 I do not see any noise and really not in Full frame I personally had to raise iso over 1600 because canon rp and nikon z6 over 3200 you see noise
Great explanation for photography and video on these various formats. I have been in the Info Tech world for over 30 years and can tell you, as we get better at making sensors, and lowering the cost (big driver for manufacturers) we are going to see the four-thirds and 35mm sensors getting better. Lenses are getting better. I like you gave us the right tool for the right job, and as you said the one that works for you. It is wonderful to live in an age where we have such great options and high quality optics.
I have been a multi format shooter for a long time, but for me the way I usually work is pick a lens that I like the look of then grab a camera body I can attach it to. The reason why I got a Micro 4/3 system was because of the 17mm f1.2 Olympus lens and the two body cap lenses. I loved the look so I found a body to attach the lenses to. I also have a pair of different FX format systems (full frame miniature format or 35mm), medium format, and large format (4x5) system I frequently use. I don't think there is a wrong way, but I usually pick based on the lens and then grab something I can attach the lens to, not the other way around
I think sometimes we get so wrapped up into the gear we forget that the outcome of our photography is what counts. I do shoot micro 4/3 only. I shoot Panasonic Lumix and also Olympus both have not disappointed me with the outcome. I have seen micro 4/3 used to take billboard pictures with no problem at all. So I’m convinced that we need to get back to photographs not gear. I switched from Nikon over to micro 4/3 because of some limitations I have physically. I have hand tremors and do not want to quit taking photos. So the reduction in weight, size and IBIS made all the difference. Even though my tremors continue it’s much easier for me to take photographs now. Also my eyesight gives me trouble at times and EVF Has helped with me composing and exposing my pictures. So I say I hope micro 4/3 will continue to meet the needs of many people and also contribute to the wide range of cameras we have to choose from. Thank you for your comments on micro 4/3 versus full frame
Why don't those that do not like the MFT cameras not criticize FF cameras for not being as good as Medium Format cameras? Medium Format cameras are even bigger, even more expensive, but provide even better results than FF cameras ! Clearly their negative comments on MFT has nothing to do with picture quality, cost or physical size of the camera systems.
Answer: Both. Canon 5DS-R (50.3 megapixel), and 5D Mark IV (30 MP), for use with my Canon EF 11-24mm f/4 L, Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 ii L, Canon 50mm f/1.2 ii, Canon 85mm f/1.2 ii, and Canon EF 600mm f/4 ii IS L lenses. Panasonic GM-5 and GX-85 with my Lumix 12-32 and 14-140mm zoom lenses. It depends on what I'm shooting, where I'm going and how much I'm willing to carry. Wild life, then Canon 600mm f/4 with 5DS-R. Around town during the day, then Panasonic GM-5 with 14-140mm zoom. Night time, Canon 50mm f/1.2, and so on. I must admit, it's nice carrying the GM-5 with the 12-32mm kit zoom for casual shooting. So light and great image quality. Thank you for another excellent video.
Good topic. The enthusiast discussion seems to often favour a view where only FF matters. But sometimes weight and portability are more important than maximum image quality, prompting the use of MFT or APS-C instead. And fun is another factor altogether: I’ve had a lot of fun - and still do - using the Nikon 1 V1 camera with its one inch, ten megapixel sensor. Would I use it in professional work? Likely not. But it offers something unique: the jpeg files straight from that camera have a specific film-like quality that appeals to me more than lugging a bigger FF camera around, taking pictures and then fixing them in post production to look like the photos were shot on film. So, for each purpose you have to add up pluses and minuses and see what combination of factors equals the end result and expected experience.
Professional photography is getting weird occupation if the photographer loses choice of equipment and has to use certain equipment to have professional visibility. I would better do something different than to be tied to Canon FF bulb in order to be commercial photographer. It seems permanent lockdown is better than this.
This is because 95% of the enthusiasts are either wedding/events/portrait photographers where DOF and low-light performance matters or armchair photographers who buy expensive gear use it once or twice and put it on a shelf to collect dust.
Absolutely agreed. Why would any of us benefit from a reduction in choice. The more types, styles and technologies of photographic equipment the better. I use a wheelchair so Micro 4/3 is perfect for me because of the size and weight savings combined with great images (even compared to the small and light Pentax APS-C setup I had before). I still use a 35mm SLR for lots of things because even though it's "full frame", the lenses and bodies from the 70s and 80s were generally so much smaller and lighter than modern equivalents. I guess some people just like to justify their purchases but for the rest of us, live and let live!
Very sensible commentary! I have often wondered if the micro part of the name is a holdover from the days when Japan was famous for its brilliance in miniaturizing electronics. For a few decades we marveled at miniaturization, and I think the Japanese still value compactness to a greater degree than many countries. Perhaps Olympus and Panasonic were a bit naive in how the micro part of the name would be received in some parts of the world. They could still rebrand MFT as Mirrorless Four Thirds. Or Macho Four Thirds or Mighty Four Thirds. :D
Indeed. That might help explain why Micro Four Thirds is big in Asia (and tops in Japan, if you believe the sales numbers), while it struggles mightily in North America, where the "big is better" mentality holds strong.
And it should not have been called MICRO four thirds. Mirrorless four thirds would have been much better marketing. Using micro in the name diminished it it many people’s perception. Micro is tiny and insignificant, while the platform definitely is not insignificant.
@@ashleyblack327 yes, the overall size of the camera can be reduced, but using micro as part of the name was not the best choice in terms of marketing in some parts of the world, including the US.
Hi Matti- I completely agree with your point of view regarding the benefits and drawbacks of the different systems. One should use the system that works best for a particular situation. I use a "full frame" system for more serious work or when I don't have to carry it long distances. My MFT camera is used for hiking or for travel, when size and weight is a consideration. I also have a APS-C camera that can use the lenses of the full frame system. I also shoot film, mostly medium format, when I want to slow down and enjoy the experience of old-school photography. Regarding your comment of the "Micro" part of the MFT name- I think that comes from the early days when Four-Thirds cameras still had a reflex mirror for the viewfinder. The "micro" was added to differentiate the mirror-less systems that came later. Keep up the informative and entertaining videos. ~Earl
G9 with all the Olympus PRO lenses have worked perfectly well for me. They fulfill all my needs, both for the photos and videos. G9 has very good quality preamps, hence the sound is very clear and doesn't require any post processing to sound very well. The videos produced by G9 are of superb quality (I use 4K 60p at all times), especially with the Olympus PRO lenses (I compared them with Leica and other lenses, and Olympus PRO is a clear win for me). I mostly use Manual Focus in the videos, because I mostly film woodworking but also in sports like body building or calisthenics, the Manual Focus works fine. On rare occasions I need to use Auto Focus, and it never let me down either. I experienced some pulsing in the corner while AF was acquiring focus on the 7-14mm Olympus PRO lenses. However on narrower lenses such as Olympus PRO 12-40mm or Olympus PRO 40-150mm + TeleConverter 1.4x G9 has no issues with the Auto Focus. G9 is quite big and heavy, comparing to S5 FF body, they look very comparable. I would consider S5 or newer model to be my next camera, however, so far I don't feel I actually need it, and such a switch is very expensive, if I wanted to replace my current lenses ranges. I also have some Olympus PRO primes. So imagine how much money I would have to invest in FF, to just meet my current setup. I will probably live with M43 until Midi Format becomes cheap and popular, and then I will jump on that train.
Just an exceptional video, Matti, and thank you. It's about the images, i.e. photography, not the format. Cameras are just a tool. I am just an amateur hobby photographer. I shoot M43 probably 80+% of the time, but also APS-C, 35mm film, and yes, point and shoot (1" and 1/1.7 sensors). Like any tool, each has it's strengths and limitations of which I need to be mindful, but within those limitations, I enjoy them all. No interest in engaging in the format wars; I just enjoy shooting with all of my cameras. It's about my love of photography, not about format.
I have ended up with a combination of Fuji's APS-C (X100F) whenever I need to go light and Nikon F-mount FF system (2 cameras) for everything else, including occasional photography business. Also, as an owner of two Olympus OM bodies (yes - those original ones from '70s) I have always liked Olympus's E-M5 series for their design and portability. So - I may extend my gear with E-M5 II soon, I like its design more than E-M5 III's actually. What I still can't manage is to do the serious photography with mirrorless - I don't know why, but the classic DSLRs still give me the perfect mixture of great controls, great AF speed, the overall camera performance and the real scene view thanks to the optical viewfinders. I am really glad there's so many choices these days and that the classic DSLRs are still in the production.
Thanks matti...as ever your views are balanced and thoughtful based on practice and not on speculations...as an amateur interested in bird photography Micro four thirds offers great quality and reach at an affordable price and an unmatched advantage in terms of being the lightest to carry...with the Denoising technology making huge leaps,and with improvement in sensor technology and computational photography, there is every possibility of micro four thirds leap frog over all other formats at some point in time...this is a distinct possibility provided the manufacturers remain committed towards delivering the best and cost effective products to the consumers and not driven by just commercial considerations...in any case,the demand and supply dynamics will tilt the balance towards more cost effective innovations.
I just bought a second G9 body. The current $997 price is unbeatable considering the features, build quality, ergonomics, perfect camera in all but lowest light conditions. No need to crop to death and prints large if image is good to begin with. The video is great. I don’t need to focus instantly on the eyes of fireflies darting about in the dark.
I've got a g9 coming tomorrow, definitely think it'll benefit me with the smaller lenses and the amazing Ibis. I've gone from 35mm film, to apsc, to now micro 4/3s. Tiny sensors are improving everyday with phone cameras.
Using different formats is clearly a luxury and using cameras is part of the pleasure of photography. Does gear matter ? Of course , it is true for musicians for painters etc.... MFT is really fine . It can be compact, affordable and nice to use. I hope there will be customers and products in the future.
Each sensor size has their place. I use them all! I recently (three years ago) discovered MFT when I bought a GH5 thinking I would only use it for video adapted with my Canon FF lenses. I added just two native Oly Pro lenses (7-14 and 40-150 2.8s) and was blown away when experimenting with this setup for stills too! MFT totally over performed to my previous expectations. MFT shall be a permanent part of my toolkit unimportant of future investments in larger sensor size cameras. Variety is the spice of life!🙏🏾
Hi Matti, If I only owned a FF camera I would take an estimated 80% less photographs than I do by shooting with both M43 & FF, I would get far less enjoyment from my photography. It’s simple, in my day to day work I can carry ample M43 gear for a range of compositions in a small camera bag. I don’t go out everyday just to shoot, I’m not a pro photographer, I put food on the table with my full time job. However, thanks to M43 I almost always have a camera with fantastic capability in the form of a G9 on hand. When I shoot studio, again amateur, and landscape I like to use the FF but in reality I could equally, well almost, use the G9 for all of my photography, but I enjoy using my FF camera and lenses too. If a camera serves my purpose I will work to master it the best I can and not blame the camera for my lack of knowledge or skill. There’s room for all formats whilst people want to use them. Nice topic, thanks Matti.
I’ve used FF, APSC and now M4/3, they have their pros and cons but in my mind if you know what you are doing, you can get results with any camera you pick up, and every sensor size comes with its caveats. Great video !
My camera is compact, unobtrusive and weights only 420gr. Also, I can adapt all my beloved vintage lenses and focus with the very useful "focus magnification" facility when necessary. And yes, it is FF and delivers a perfect resolution. In the past, I had an Aps-C camera that made me hate picture taking because of the x1,5 factor which alterated all my wideangle lenses (I rarely shoot over 45mm).
I have m43 APSC and FF cameras: al small and portable because that's how I like cameras I have a Canon RP and a 5Dmkll, a Fuji X100V and several Lumix and Olympus cameras and lenses. The best IQ comes probably from the x100V, but for whatever reasons when I have to pick up something my hands always go for the m43. I have to make a conscious effort to pick any if the others, knowing I have a particular situation or light environment that might be a challenge. The point is that I simply prefer the convenience, lens size and overall package of a Gx9 a Pen F or a em5, probably because I much prefer the 4:3 image ratio to the 3:2 that comes with all other cameras. It makes shooting vertically so much more pleasing. I'm not a professional photographer and I do never print wider the A2. My best work I did with a Canon 450D and just 12 MP printing A0 Composite tables so I know I don't need more. If I were a full time portrait photographer with studio lights and all I'd probably go for a MF, but the truth is that I mostly don't know what I'm going to shoot and for landscape and Architecture photography m43 is so convenient with its high depth of field and 4:3 ratio which reduces the need for cropping the sides to cut out unwanted elements. Another plus is that you often can get things done with a small Jobi or pocketable tripod due to the light weight of the system and still produce amazing images even where tripods are not allowed.
I really dislike the 3:2 aspect ratio myself so when I was shooting film I mostly shot square or 4x5. I always feel the need to crop the 3:2 so having a native shorter 4:3 aspect ratio works better for me. I keep seeing comments everywhere on the internet about the ff high pixel cameras being better because they allow you to crop in without losing too much resolution and I think to myself "Why are you always needing to crop in?" "Are you also finding the native 3:2 aspect ratio doesn't work for you but you haven't realized that's the problem?" If the aspect ratio is one you enjoy working with, you can frame up your shots just how you want them so there's no need to crop in and lose pixels. Maybe native aspect ratios in cameras are something that will change in the future? Even TV and computer screen shapes have changed over the years.
I have all three systems, Micro 4/3, APSC & Full Frame. I enjoy using them all; for sure each system has its place for different types of photography. Matti, keep up with your great work in bringing the most up to date information on camera gears and inspiration to your viewers globally. 👍👍👍
Really agree with you that enjoying your camera is the key. I don't enjoy taking photos on a smartphone. So MFT became my take everywhere camera. I also use full frame.
I never owned an analog camera, and bought my first digital in 2000 (FujiFilm 2400z). I changed my camera every 3-5 years, but it always was a non interchangeable zoom compact or bridge (last one was Sony RX100 II). 2016 I bought G85 + 14-140 kit and the quality difference was huge! 4.5 years after I own about 10 lenses, including all the bright panasonic fixes (15mm f1,7, 20mm f1,7, 25mm f1,4 and 42,5mm f1,2) and some other cool stuff like Olympus 8mm f1,8 and 60mm 2,8 macro or MOG Primoplan 58 f1.9 II for MFT. But the only real big (huge) difference to my mobile phone (or older cameras) are portraits, full body, closeups everything. They are so much better using MFT + bright fixed lens!
It all boils down to the best tool for the job. I sold my Full Frame Nikon equipment because it was too heavy for me to use and also becoming out of date. I now use Olympus Em1 and am happy with the results. You are right - full frame suits fine detail and super enlarged images, but if you simply post photos on the internet then sensor size is irrelevant. Unfortunately there is no perfect camera, for example even a full frame like your LUMIX has a sluggish autofocus compared with other full frame bodies,
I agreed, I also use the mix of Sony A7RIV, A5100, Olympus E-M1 MKII, E-M10 MK II and Panasonic G85. I love them all, each has its strengths and weaknesses and served all the different situations very well. Full frame camera has gotten smaller like the Sony A7C, however, it isn't the most ergonomic, the lens system still contribute to the overall bulkiness and heavier weight, compared to the MFT.
I have MFT and APS-C Cameras. Not ultimatively bc of the sensor size differences but in the different styles the cameras allow me to shoot. I use MFT mostly for Macro and Tele work bc of the 2x crop factor where you can get closer to your subject. The Olympus IBIS comes in handy as well. My APS-C Fuji is the main street machine bc of the awesome JPEG Film Sims and the fact that you can better adapt vintage ff glass in therms of focal lengths (Love the Schneider Kreuznach Curtagon 35mm f2.8!)
I use full frame, APS-C and M4/3 cameras and lenses. Works for me. If forced to choose one format out of these three it would certainly be the M4/3, However for superb autofocus and low light high ISO photography without flash, my Sony full frame is miles ahead. However overall I just enjoy using Panasonic cameras more. Also Olympus, of which I have one which is also very satisfying.
I use my gh5 for everything and i am very happy with it but i will buy a full frame camera too. I will use it for portraits and some filming. For longer lenses , streetphotos and filming as well i will use gh5 mostly
I have started with MFT and can say that I have a full range of lenses including some 4/3 with adapter which are awesome (150 f2 for example). I have now and Sony system and use both for not professional photography only for fun and relax. With Sony is easy to use both systems (if you buy a asp-c body with FF lens) so now I have view of 3 system formats :).
I prefer full frame because of the advantages and Lumix S5 size is perfect for me. I dont like to have several cameras and lot of lenses , just one fits all. I dont like to have too much equipment. Thats why before buying a camera, I take my time to choose wisely
totally agreed, I like all formats, including compact cameras, last summer I used a lot also my little canon sx740 hs, and I like the prints which came out of it, of course I have a full frame and 2 aps-c systems too, from different brands, but I can't help not liking smartphone photography, I use smartphones only to scan documents, or record a whiteboard or remember a product I see in a shop....for any real photos I don't like them.....
Totally agree. Have your ever had the experience that you wanted to like or love something or someone, but it did not work out? That is me and FF/MFT. FF pictures are great, but the equipment is simply too heavy for me to carry around every day. And with MFT the picture quality is simply not the best (plus some cameras are big, too). Now I have settled for APS-C (again), seems to be the best compromise. Like in a good marriage ;-)
I love micro four thirds. I think they are definitely complimentary. I think the only thing holding the system back at the moment is that a new camera hasn't come out that would benefit from a new sensor or new auto focusing technology.
I have Lumix GX85, Sony A58, Nikon D600, Sony HX50V, Olympus Stylus 1s and off course Google Pixel series. Everything works just fine for me. I use different cameras in different situations and demands. To me better glass is more important than camera body.
I use GX80 with few lenses when I fly on vacations or for business. G9 for vacations with car (also could be thousand and more kilometres). And finally Pentax for outdoor trips in hard conditions. Pentax is like a tank - snow, ice, rain, mud, sand, it doesn't matter. On other side, last summer in Saxony Switzerland, G9 was perfect in long mountain trips.
Both, a soon I can afford it. Travel Lightweight vs. creative Control. One is more suited for the former, one for the other. And from my point, the difference is not that much that you can't achieve creative control with mft.
I like MFT for my outdoor and hunting adventures because I don't have to tow a little wagon behind me for my gear. The best camera is the one you can take with you and have fun with. I've never had fun taking pictures or video with my phone they just aren't interesting.
Competition is good! There is no benefit from a format dying out. We're the ones that benefit from having variety and from manufacturers innovating and competing with each other. FF mirrorless wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't for M43 and other sensor sizes.
If Panasonic are smart they will recognise that people want to use both. They will make the GH6 with identical ergonomics, form factor, menus, and peripheral compatibility (cards, batteries, battery grip, XLR adapter etc) as the S5 (although they might squeeze in a full size HDMI connector).
Very nice explanations. Thanks. For personal stuff I use Fujifilm APS-C, and for paid mostly Canon FF, sometimes Fujifilm, so can relate a lot to your video.
I rented an A7III last summer, and compared it to my GH5. In some of the photos taken on a clear sunny day, it was easy to see that the pictures from my GH5 had noise in the sky at very low ISO. And the Sony photo was nice and clean. This was surprising for me, since you only ever hear that noise is a problem at high ISO, and in the shadow/ darker areas of a photo taken with m4/3.
Good balanced commentary Matti. I can totally understand why you didn't go deeper into the back-breaking disadvantages of a FF system! I always wonder if it is optically possible to produce a "reverse converter" to mount a m4/3 lens onto FF, at perhaps a loss of two stops of light.
I like "all" camera's no matter what brand or sensor size. The photo world would be less fun with fewer choices. I do not have a 24x36 sensor camera yet, but it will come, I have a bunch of 35mm vintage lenses I would like to adapt. Even sensor resolution can give a great look, I love my 5MP Oly E-1. I should add I shoot with a mFT camera, love the size & weight, perfect for hiking and around town.
Full Frame industry needs MFT. MFT fills the gap between mobile phones and Full Frame. We are old people and we already know to use a camera, but young people who have never used a photography camera are not going to move from their mobile phone to a 4.000 euro Full Frame Sony camera with a 1.000 euro lens. That will never happen because "the gap is too big". They will no do that "just to try". MFT makes very easy to move to cameras. Later, only they think they need it, they may go to a Full Frame camera. I would say that 95% of the Sony a7S iii users have used before a Lumix camera. MFT is needed.
I own a FF DSLR and a MFT GX85. I carry both systems in my bag even when I travel. I almost never reach for the MFT! I prefer the feel, optical viewfinder and image quality of a full frame camera. This is after buying the Lumix GX85 to replace my heavy DSLR when traveling. It just didn't work out. How about noise and loss of detail in low light? You can compare images taken in perfect conditions but let's compare low light photos.
Hi Matti! Last week I bought on occasion ten yo Lumix GH2 16MP. It’s smaller and lighter than my main Olympus -M1 mark III and it performs very nice in AF, face detection and colour rendering. I don’t see it’s lagging too much behind E-M1 mark II but it’s more compact and has less weight. That’s fine for me and I will use it. Now, about formats. In my opinion involving customers in sensor size wars is most horrible thing that Japanese photo Corps do. I hate them for that. In my opinion the sensor size is part of whole imaging technology and customers should be bothered only by final result and consider only quality of pictures produced by the camera. If the picture quality is in direct corresponding to sensor size then one has to decide what quality you and your customers need. The quality is measured in terms of spatial resolution and dynamic range. So these measurement theoretically can go infinite and eventually one has to decide which order of magnitude is sufficient. It’s just common sense. It’s impossible to embrace infinity. But as I see that MTF is attacked from FF side I suspect that really MFT fits most demands so that FF is really niche formats. But all the brands are Japanese corporations and Japan economy depends on photo equipment sells too. Moving customers mostly to more cheap MFT will harm corporations. So it’s also economical and political issue. So there is strong Japanese sentiment that MFT better to die than to continue bankrupt industry. The ppl in industry simply want to eat and drink. So think they urge to suck from us as much money as possible. It’s simply life and they are not angels doing only good for mankind for free.
Given recent strides in AI driven software for image upsizing and increased resolution, I see that smaller sensors, M43 or FF, can deliver huge prints. So instead of larger format camera sensors , perhaps new post processing CPU power will be the mandate? This evolution may breathe some life into film scanning as well. I’m just speculating, of course!
Hi Matti good subject, thanks for putting it out there. For me each of these formats, and others are relevant. I do agree that if you master your camera, you will have a very good chance of shooting a quality shot, but I guess the word quality is subjective also; pixel peeping, focus, subject, composition to name a few... , what ever does it for you! For example, i don’t take my FF with me each day, I take the a m43, it’s alway in my car along with a couple of choice lenses and fully charged spare batteries; for the studio or for landscape I take the FF camera, although I do use the M43 occasionally for these genres too. I also print my own work and the M43 20mp camera prints are excellent so long as you don’t over reach on the size of the print, A3 at 240 dpi is great but i’ve also gone to A2, but has to be from a tripod even with the great IBIS and OIS combined, wel for me anyhow, a good quality photography printer helps with this. You don’t have as much scope in post with M43 as you do FF sensor with more Mp’s so getting it right in camera is important with larger prints from an M43 because you don’t lose data by pushing the raw image too far which is all too easy to do, cropping is a factor with smaller sensors too of course. Why anyone would like to see the end of M43 is beyond me, I’m hoping that M43 hangs in there for some time to come and looking forward to the next iteration, the GH6 from Lumix. The G9 thatcI have is nothing short of superb, you’ve just got to master the camera like any camera and you will not be disappointed. FF and other formats work for me too as mentioned above, I would even considering medium format in future if I could justify it. BTW, the GX9 is a beauty of a camera for street photography, even in low light with a decent fast lens, and despite what some say you can achieve higher shutter speed with good exposure and low ISO with it if you just learn the setting and sort out a custom mode for yourself. Master the settings and the AFC rarely lets me down. So you just have to stop blaming the gear and master the gear or you’ll never be happy with any camera.
I only have an APSC Sony A6000, but I like the idea of the MFT. Just like M42 back in the day it's actually a standard that is used by different brands, we need more of that. You can get quite a lot of lenzes for MFT for decent prices. There's also enough for my Sony, but we need less proprietary lenzes (and electronics and accessories in general) in my opinion.
I might be wrong, but a lot of the hate stems from many m4/3 ambassadors in the past going why they chose m4/3 instead of full frame. Some of the reasons are valid, while others seem to be spreading misconceptions about full frame. This is especially so in recent times when full frame prices have dropped drastically in recent years and the sizes of the bodies have become smaller. In some regions, the cost of the em1 mark 3 is more than the sony a7iii or a7c, eos rp etc.. Also the APSC bodies have achieved similar size and similar prices with many m4/3bodies. Of course, lens sizes are smaller. I do agree though that every system has their place. Also more systems, allow for more competition and more variety for consumers so everyone benefits.
i sold my 5d iii and changed to sony a 7iii a camera able to deliver very good iq but i never had the feeling of thats my camera! last year i bought a used olympus e m1 ii and it has incredible ergonomic, very good iq,, incredible lenses, good af and an infinity of possibilities and most important its a joy to use.
Thanks. I know what you are talking about. Some cameras just feel right and some not and if the camera doesn't feel right, the specs don't matter much. I'm not referring to Sony specifically, but in general.
Hello Matti, I changed 2018 to Lumix MFT, mainly driven by the smaller size and weight. Especially for wildlife photography the weight and size are a real benefit compared to FF. As I’m a hobby photographer I’ll never buy a second system in parallel. Of course I’m aware that FF has some advantages in special situations, but I can live with that. The picture quality was sufficient at any time. During astrophotography I sometimes reach the limit of my system, but thats ok, as I know that I saved a lot of money and the system is easier to transport. Cheers, Joerg
Here is the strategy I have been using for years. For wide angle lenses I use FF. I like fast lenses and high ISO low noise results. So without naming brands, I use 14-24mm 2.8 FF. To get the same results with M43 lenses in DOF and high ISO in camera results I don't think there are such fast zooms available. I use a AF 24mm f1.4 lens of super high IQ low distortion and a camera that is FF and has higher MP and can deliver shallow DOF and low noise at higher ISO. M43 is right now only giving us 20mp, and not so good AF . Now I do like M43 for Telephoto and have a great 40-150mm f2.8 lens with TC that is about 420mm and half the size and weight of a FF lens that doesn't exist, and if it did it would be $10,000. M43 cameras could give you 7 stops of IBIS so you can hand hold the Telephoto instead of having to use a tripod. I think there is a synergy between M43 and FF where their best traits work well together.
I had several digital cameras, from crop (Leica M8) to FF (M9 und Sony A7) to MFT (Olympus Pen F). In the end I found that size matters, and that I get the most bang for the buck with - MFT. Better image quality with the M9 and Sony A7? Yes, slightly (nobody notices the difference when shown the images). Can I have the pixel-shift hi-res mode for my "scanning" needs (nice for a 4x5 negative) for the same money as with MFT? Nope. But what really drove me away from FF is lens sizes (and prices) - most lenses for mirrorless are as huge and heavy as lenses were for medium format 6x6 back then, or even larger. That's not cool. If I want big and heavy, I'll take my 4x5 … ;-)
I love the small mft size like GM5 with Pan 42.5mm/1.7. And the GX8 with Tilt view finder. Since some weeks I have a G9 with even more increased Image Quality. And even in astrophotography I could increase my skills a lot. Still there are limitation behind the camera ;-) I am open minded to other systems but I like to have the phantastic menu that is pretty much similar over generations of Panasonics - also bridge cam. And it would be also a question of money - I prefer to invest in new lenses that makes the image ...
Thanks for the video, you said it very well. When I see negative and even strong words against M43, I just don't get it. Why? Are those people threatened somehow? Surely there is a place for different systems. One argument that annoys me is when they talk of bokeh as if M43 can't do it! Or they say it isn't "easy". But it is super easy to get with almost any lens. In any case why the obsession with shallow depth of field, often we don't want it, as in macro photography. Different tools for the job. At the end of the day it is just gear, who cares what format it is, just take photos and be happy 🙂
Another thoughtful piece. Photography has always been part religion/part politics for some people, whom I often find annoying. All that really matters is the end result, and hardware won’t get there there, it is just a tool. Noise? Software like Topaz DeNoise AI levels the playing field with my GX8 and G9. Higher resolution? Unless you are printing very large formats, you are kidding yourself that you need it. I love my collection of M43 lenses, and I have developed an especially close affinity for my G9. I have also had an X100T for years, just upgraded to an X100V. And some of my best pictures have come from my smartphone. I would challenge anyone correctly identify which pictures came from which camera.
I use the Olympus MFT System and I am very happy with it. The most important reason for me is, that I like to shoot Birds with long Telephoto lenses. They are much more affordable within the MFT-System with great Quality. The whole System is then still always with me, when I go out hiking. Pherhaps I will buy a FF-Camera in the future for shooting Stageperformances and in Low-Light in general. Not the best Places for MFT. Hope all the Sensors will stay for a long time!
Likewise I'm in the fortunate position to be heavily invested in both Lumix MFT and Nikon FF. My Nikon DSLRs couldn't be more different than my mirrorless Lumix kit! Both have their advantages and disadvantages over each other. For absolute image quality my Nikon D750 & D850 trounce my G9 but my FF lenses and bodies are massive and much heavier by comparison. I feel I get excellent images from both systems, this sensor war is frankly ridiculous in my opinion.
Very much enjoyed this video. I shoot both FF and MFT. I have old cameras and not the best glass. I'm still happy with my images, and I really think that's what Matti is trying to say. Let's all just enjoy the wonderful experience that is photography. However I do rather love my Leica m3 ☺️ thanks Matti for the great video 👍
About 45 years ago, when I learned the skills, we used Linhof, Sinar, Toyo... (4*5" to 8*10") für best quality, Hasselblad, Rollei, Mamiya... (4,5*6cm, 6*6cm, 6*9cm) as Workhorses and "the small ones" (24*36mm / FF) for standard-jobs, street, travel, wildlife... Each of them had its right for living... Know them all, master them all and pick the one you need for your job! That's it! Privately I worked about 20 years with Minolta (MF), 20 years with Canon (AF) and now about 5 years with Panasonic MFT ... I love the small size of the very good lenses. Is there any competitor to the 1.7 /10-25mm in FF? ;-) The discussion is the same about zooms and primes... absolutely in vain...
In my opinion, you shouldn‘t use two systems. You can buy any lens for any purpose and shoot everything with microfourthirds. People should free themself. My question to you: You have a 50MP fullframe camera with heavy 24-70 2.8 lens and a small MFT camera with a small lens and now you go on a trip to shoot lanscape. You always ask yourself, should I take the big or small gear. Maybe you end up using fullframe, because you have a better feeling because of the more flexible raw files in editing. Another day, you feel unconfortable to use a big expensive camera on a place where nobody is carrying a camera, so you decide to take the small camera. Sometimes later, you browse all your pictures and the only reason, you were not happy with your pictures, is because you fail yourself. There is nearly never a case, where the bigger sensor make the difference between a good and a bad picture. We all know this.. places, no light.. ISO6400 and motion blur. There are situations, where you better shouldn‘t take pictures and don‘t think, that a bigger sensor helps out. And yes, there are situations, where a bigger sensor makes sense, but to be honest, most of our pictures don‘t need it.
I enjoy my m43 system because it is so much smaller than FF. Fairly consistently, lenses are half of the weight of FF (at equivalent spec) and often half the price too. The IQ, while not as good as FF, is still plenty good for my needs and for the vast majority of photographers. Most people just post their pictures in low resolution online anyways. For me the selection of one format or the other (assuming that you have to choose) is pretty easy: 1) If you want something small, because like me you like to hike up mountains with it or you like to travel, then m43 is a no-brainer. 2) If you want the highest quality and don't have to carry your gear very far, then FF makes more sense. APS-C and Medium are the formats that don't make sense to me: 3) APS-C is kinda the "worst of both worlds" with the size of lenses approaching FF and IQ not significantly better than m43. So what purpose does it serve? 4) Medium format only produces images of marginally better IQ than FF, so why would anyone bother with extra size, cost and limitations (mostly speed, limited lenses) for it? Only a very few niche photographers will ever notice the difference between FF and Medium in IQ.
I personnaly choose mft for the compacity, traveling. By the way i'm not a fan of g9 or gh5, i found those cameras too big, hope panasonic built a new gx8 with weathersealed and all the lenses pass thru the weathersealed too. Thank's for the video 👍
the GX8 is weather sealed.no need for a new camera. I regularly still use my GF1 and the rendering is beautiful and the IQ blows away even my brand new iPhone. Currently the newer cameras only offer faster AF, faster bursts, and more image stabilization.
@@c.augustin if specs/mp are the driving force but not much has changed with m43 sensors in the past 5 years. I personally can't tell much of a difference with G9 (20mp), GX8 (16mp), and sometimes GF1 (12mp) files and the output is more than good enough. This is true for a lot of other camera systems, where ILC's have reached a point where you are paying more for features and maybe slightly bumps in MP # but the IQ difference is negligible. This is a good thing, this means you can keep your camera for a long time, or buy older cameras and be just fine. Don't fall victim to the spec marketing
@@alang253 Oh, I don't listen to spec marketing - but I can see a clear difference between my Pen F (20 MP) and my E-M10II (16 MP) in certain situations, and 16 MP is not enough for my needs (20 MP is, but less noise in the sky or with higher ISO settings would be nice). There *is* a need for improved sensors, and BSI could help to get there. I'm still hoping to see such an improved sensor in 2022, but more likely I'll go with the improvements that were made already in the E-M5III (should be similar to the G9, or even slightly better). I agree that overall IQ is already high, but I would say "not quite there" for MFT.
@@c.augustin For sure, all valid points that I agree with and I'm hoping for major sensor improvements also. I was just on DPreview's review of the S5 and comparing the studio test shot with the G9 the only thing difference I could tell was noise. For me practically speaking it's never affected my photos and could never justify the size/weight/price gains to go FF. I wasn't too happy with my G9 in challenging low light with fast shutter speeds but once I started properly exposing noise has become less of an issue (no need for Topaz denoise anymore). You can't really underexpose then recover in post like you can with FF (a workflow I despise anyway), but nailing your exposure will yield similar acceptable results in MFT
3 года назад+1
Compré una GH4 en diciembre, pero conservé mi vieja Sony alpha a65. La GH4 es mi primera cámara en MFT y ha sido una experiencia bastante dura. No me acostumbro al sistema de enfoque en video y me cuesta mucho usarla en manual cuando hago fotografía. Creo que poco a poco podré dominarla y llegar a sentirme cómodo con ella. Ahora uso la SONY para mi trabajo en fotografía y todavía no he hecho mi primer trabajo en video con la Panasonic. Sé que es una cámara capaz de buenas imágenes, solo que todavía se me hace natural usarla. La verdad quisiera una sola cámara que me permitiera hacerlo todo. Quisiera probar la Sony 7c, pero por ahora está fuera de mi alcance.
I didn't quickly find if this is commented. Word Micro was taken in front of Four Thirds (which was the earlier DSLR format of bigger cameras and lenses due to the mirror) to somehow differentiate the new smaller mirrorless systems from the previous system but still tell that the sensor size is the same. Not perhaps the best choice as Matti pointed out. What about: Compact Four Thirds? Or New Four Thirds?
As an owner of many vintage manual lenses, the Panasonic S5 provides high quality images at their original focal length. This makes for economical photography. However as I carry a camera pretty much everywhere, the S5 is too big for casual use so the GX80 and pancake lens live in a jacket pocket. Image quality should be an aesthetic judgement, not a technical one. I agree m43 should stand for Mirrorless Four Thirds.
I have Fuji Aps-c several bodies xpro1, and 2 xt2 and lenses, Canon Full frame several bodies and lenses, Panasonic GH3, G9, GH2 , LX100, and lenses, also Olympus bodies and lenses including the omd em10 iv. I see m43 kind of like 35mm half frame. Even though m43 has wonderful potential for small bodies I definitely think you can make it too small. I prefer the size of the G9 to the GH3. I used (until the pandemic) the Gh3 and G9 in real estate shoots and they did fabulous work with the 7-14 lens. That 7-14 is a great lens, (beware the reflections), but it has been a great investment. M43 needs high quality reasonably priced glass and a bump in resolution to compete. Panasonic needs, depending on who you talk to, phase detect autofocus. Personally it does not matter to me but it does to some. I stay away from SONY due to ergonomics, prices, menus, and other reasons, Nikon I am concerned about investing in and since I have a lot of Canon, I can't see myself going to Nikon. The truth is most people don't need more than even 15 mpix, the LX100 did need a bump in resolution. The high resolution modes on the G9 work nicely but in my work I don't use it. I am in favor of all kinds and formats of cameras. When you look at the new R system the lenses are not thinner even if they played games with the new 70-200, unfortunately Canon does not have much selection in their M lenses for their smaller sensor, and frankly I don't want to use a giant sized lens repurposed to fit a small camera from a 3rd party. SMALL good lenses I would say should be a goal for every manufacturer, unfortunately as resolution has increased the glass has gotten more complicated in order to use the resolution. I think the sweet spot is maybe 30-35 megapixels on a FF in terms on reasonable glass. I would have preferred the Lx100 series to be a little larger in size with better and faster glass with a slightly longer reach.
Hi Matti, Love your videos, they are always clear and precise. I couldn’t help noticing on a few occasions you are out photographing, you wear this leather wriststrap, is this because of repetitive strain ? I have looked online but cannot find one which is as wide and neatly formed to your hand as yours. Perhaps you could let me know? Much appreciated Helen
Thanks so much! That strap is made by daughter and it's a one off😀 Actually there are two almost similar, but anyway, can't be bought anywhere. I like it better than other types of straps in most situations.
I have used full frame cameras since the 1970s with of course 35mm film and then digital FF right up to very recently. There’s no denying that Full Frame cameras give the ‘best image quality’, but IQ is not the only consideration. It has to be said that FF cameras and particularly full frame lenses are big and heavy in comparison to their MFT equivalents. I sold all my Canon FF equipment in September of last year and switched to using the MFT system entirely. I pretty much have the same amount of equipment in my backpack as I had before, but it weighs only about half of what I was carrying before I made the switch to MFT. As I get older, this is becoming more and more important to me.
I have both FF and M43. Since buying the GX9 two years ago, I rarely use my FF and instead added the G9. I agree with most of what you said except for 2 things. 1. FF is not superior, better yes, but not that much better and both are better than 35mm film which is ironic since film is measuring tape that started the problem. 2. The bigger the print, the less resolution is needed. If putting ones nose to a print to see microscopic detail is important than might as well go right to Medium format. The "micro" in micro four thirds refers to it being mirrorless since it was revolutionary when introduced. I agree this is a poor choice of words for most of the world, but in Japan, this made it more attractive, which I suspect is why M43 still leads the market in Japan. They are obsessed with making things small.
I agree with your points.I am not a professional photographer (I am an accountant), but I used both MFT (Olympus) and full-frame (Sony) extensively. Sony is a workhorse. It is fantastic for portraits and events thanks to the best tracking algorithm on the market and the ability to shoot wide-angle shallow DOF shots, which are unachievable on MFT without shelling a lot of money on F1.2 prime lenses. But I will never take the Sony with me on my travels because it sucks as a traveling companion. The Ergonomics are horrible. The IBIS is non-existing. It is heavy with fast glass. The weather-sealing is mediocre at best. It is just awful for travel. The problem is that most professionals are making a living from portraits and events because this is where the money is in the industry. Amateurs are satisfied with their smartphones. MFT is stuck between the hammer and the anvil, but I think that there will be enough MFT users to support the format in the years to come.
Hi Matti, I agree with your video. And with all the others too btw....Good explaining about the FF naming. Back in the 80’s I used to make slides with my Pentax Super A, MX, MeF, ME super etc. Than the Nikons 301 and 501. Nice Ff camera’s......today I am using for a hobby both the G9 and the S5, after switching from Sony a6300 and rx10iii last year because even after 10 years of Somy’s, I could not get used to the terrible menu system and the Lumix has far more usable features also. the only Sony I will not sell is my RX100iv. So in a sense I upgraded sensorwise from 1 inch to mft.... and downsized from the a6300 apsc to mft . No problem at all. And another thing; my a6300 had AF difficulties in darker situations when shooting video, which my G9 has not. That is the opposite from what I used to read about AF and Lumix.....About the s5; I really like this camera for the crisp and ultrasharp pictures and video quality. But then again; the G9 I am fond of too. Especially with the 12-60 or 100-300 on it. So I use them both. It is just about personal taste and need. Sometimes I just like playing with the gear just because of the gear. Has nothing to do with taking a picture, but hey, it is what I like doing and when shooting, I even more enjoy taking the S5 or G9 with me. So as far as I am concerned, both systems can stay.....last word about iphone: From time to time I find it a challenge to only take the iphone with me and get the most out of it picture wise. How cool is that! 10 yrs ago I didn’t even have a smartphone.....wish you all the best Matti and thanks for your channel.
M4/3 gets a bad rap. We need as many photography brands and formats for photohraphers: 1. Choice, 2. Competition = better Priceing for consumers, 3. weight and size! Look at history on tech and products. The first cameras were huge, the Civil War camera was mounted on a wagon and had to be pulled around with horses or look at the first computer that filled a whole room. Look what the iPhone can do, How big is that sensor and it can outperform many older pro cameras and pro lenses! The iPhone is like a Swiss army knife: its a muti tool, cameras are tool nothing more. You could have $10,000 worth of camera gear hanging around your neck as a journalist to document an accident (real & they made a Meme about it) but the female reporter used a smartphone! Why? Because it was the right tool to take photos & video out live or as soon as she finished recording. No rushing to get back to a computer to download the files then to send them out. No camera can do this yet, Well samsung did have a camera that could upload but it got no love from the photography community just like the first flip screens in a camera! There is a place for all and as fast a tech is moving it will just get better.
Forty years ago I used a medium format Hasselblad for weddings and portraits, a 4x5 view camera for landscapes and a 35mm SLR for travel slides. Each format had its strengths and appropriate uses. Nobody ever criticized my use of different formats for different purposes. Now I use a MFT LUMIX G9, a Fuji X100f and a Nikon Z6. Each of the three different formats has its strengths and weaknesses but more importantly each individual camera has its pros and cons. I use each because I enjoy and appreciate each one. My only regret is that as I get older, well past 70, the three different menu systems occasionally cause a bit of confusion. Photographers, not cameras, are responsible for the quality of the photos. Use what you like.
It’s refreshing to hear someone like myself a professional from the film era, applying the logic of tools for the job, as in film so In sensors.
I find it sometimes quite embarrassing listens to some of these guys putting one format against another, claiming to be a professional...
So nicely put, I’m not always as polite as that.
The formats in film era did make sense because one cannot get rid of the film grain. But in digital photography one can make sensors of photodiodes as small as possible because simply photons have zero size. So that 100MP micro43 sensor is feasible today. And that’s the reason the diversity of formats losing sense.
@@sstansm7f Your basic premise, that the use of different film formats was simply because of the film's grain, is incorrect. The characteristics and capabilities of the cameras and their lenses were the determining factor. One would never shoot a wedding with a 4x5 camera or vacation slides with a medium format camera. Each format system had its uses. Digital cameras and their lens' characteristics make full frame more successful for portrait work and MFT often better for long telephoto work, for example. Naturally, there are other differences, also, that impact a photographer's choice of format. There is a place for each.
@@edmwesten Basically, the lenses are less and less sharp as format getting bigger.
@@sstansm7f the single sharpest lens that I have owned and used is my current Nikon 50mm f/1.8 Z and a close second is my Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4. Either lens blows away the best of the 1970’s lenses, the Nikon , or Zeiss, or Rhodenstock lenses on their different format cameras. Even the Leica lenses of the 1990’s don’t quite match up. I speak only of lenses that I owned and enjoyed in their time. Again, the size of the format matters much less than the capability of the camera and lens to do the job you need to do at the time.
I am using MFT because of the size. I love the system!
same here
I agree.
AGREE!
Me too. Size very important.
MICRO FOUR THIRDS FOREVER!
Thanks, my friend. I was waiting for this😅
Too obvious your comment ,Robin :))
Hey Robin, you're clearly biased … ;-)
Pentax forever! :P
@@mattisulanto i love my MFT but if you go after the shop they always recommend going for a bigger sensor. but I wonder if you take that much better pictures with a full frame. I just bought a new lens for the MFT the Panasonic 42.5 F1.7 I am curious.
I agree with you totally! In my 30 year career I've used almost every format made! Still own & use my MFT, FF, and Medium Format cameras most weeks. Like a shoe or a glove, many have different purposes. Living in the Bahamas you won't need winter boots or heavy gloves whereas in Alaska, tennis shoes and baseball gloves are not needed. So I say look at your situation, your budget, lifestyle, and buy whatever works BEST FOR YOU! Most of all have FUN & ENJOY the ability to capture a moment in time you can cherish forever!
No matter what you do or say... fact, fiction, documentation or an opinion, your will get the haters. There are a lot of unhappy, angry, unbalanced people out there and It's just a way of life in RUclips land :)
Thanks. True, some people are so full of unhappiness. That is sad.
I am sticking with M4/3 for the long haul. I just don't like the price, size or weight of FF cameras. I used to shoot Canon FF but I'm so happy I dumped that system over 8 years ago. No regrets. I like being nimble with M4/3 and I don't need to impress my clients with big cameras. The final result is what they look at.
Thanks, Marlene.
I have bought a canon rp fullframe camera, and the nikon z6 and i have to say the lumix g9 with the lenses of Leica 15mm, 12-60mm and sigma 16mm, 35mm you really can not see big differences in image quality even in night photography
That’s the answer why MFT is attacked.
I simply don't buy that. There is a SIGNIFICANT noise difference at higher ISOs between FF and APS-C, nevermind MFT. If you're shooting on a tripod at low ISOs then I wouldn't expect to see a difference, but if you're shooting hand-held at higher ISOs then no way are the images similar.
@@sstansm7f MFT is noisy as hell compared to FF at higher ISOs.
@@cooloox It's your choice. My photographs almost noiseless. Need to be capable.
@@cooloox do not fight 🤝, the stabilizer of the lumix g9 is really incredible. and much better than the Nikon z6 that I have, it helps you work in low iso and this is a bonus for the mft cameras not to have any fear even at night while the ff even with a stabilizer you must have iso mounted at night is missing .... each system has its own way of use.and the only mistake I made was listening to and watching videos that say only ff and all but not worth it. but when I heard and saw the main one making the videos with the Lumix G9, I went and tried it and only held it in my hand and pressed the button for the first photo, the speed and the quality that it had in the image I had no words. simple you have to change the way you work the camera a bit because it is not the same as ff and I who work it at iso 100 to 1200 I do not see any noise and really not in Full frame I personally had to raise iso over 1600 because canon rp and nikon z6 over 3200 you see noise
Great explanation for photography and video on these various formats. I have been in the Info Tech world for over 30 years and can tell you, as we get better at making sensors, and lowering the cost (big driver for manufacturers) we are going to see the four-thirds and 35mm sensors getting better. Lenses are getting better. I like you gave us the right tool for the right job, and as you said the one that works for you. It is wonderful to live in an age where we have such great options and high quality optics.
Thanks!
I have been a multi format shooter for a long time, but for me the way I usually work is pick a lens that I like the look of then grab a camera body I can attach it to. The reason why I got a Micro 4/3 system was because of the 17mm f1.2 Olympus lens and the two body cap lenses. I loved the look so I found a body to attach the lenses to. I also have a pair of different FX format systems (full frame miniature format or 35mm), medium format, and large format (4x5) system I frequently use. I don't think there is a wrong way, but I usually pick based on the lens and then grab something I can attach the lens to, not the other way around
Thanks for sharing.
I think sometimes we get so wrapped up into the gear we forget that the outcome of our photography is what counts. I do shoot micro 4/3 only. I shoot Panasonic Lumix and also Olympus both have not disappointed me with the outcome. I have seen micro 4/3 used to take billboard pictures with no problem at all. So I’m convinced that we need to get back to photographs not gear. I switched from Nikon over to micro 4/3 because of some limitations I have physically. I have hand tremors and do not want to quit taking photos. So the reduction in weight, size and IBIS made all the difference. Even though my tremors continue it’s much easier for me to take photographs now. Also my eyesight gives me trouble at times and EVF Has helped with me composing and exposing my pictures. So I say I hope micro 4/3 will continue to meet the needs of many people and also contribute to the wide range of cameras we have to choose from. Thank you for your comments on micro 4/3 versus full frame
Thanks for sharing!
Why don't those that do not like the MFT cameras not criticize FF cameras for not being as good as Medium Format cameras? Medium Format cameras are even bigger, even more expensive, but provide even better results than FF cameras ! Clearly their negative comments on MFT has nothing to do with picture quality, cost or physical size of the camera systems.
When the micro 4/3 system was first introduced, I thought to myself that using "micro" in the name was a bad marketing idea.
Answer: Both. Canon 5DS-R (50.3 megapixel), and 5D Mark IV (30 MP), for use with my Canon EF 11-24mm f/4 L, Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 ii L, Canon 50mm f/1.2 ii, Canon 85mm f/1.2 ii, and Canon EF 600mm f/4 ii IS L lenses. Panasonic GM-5 and GX-85 with my Lumix 12-32 and 14-140mm zoom lenses. It depends on what I'm shooting, where I'm going and how much I'm willing to carry. Wild life, then Canon 600mm f/4 with 5DS-R. Around town during the day, then Panasonic GM-5 with 14-140mm zoom. Night time, Canon 50mm f/1.2, and so on. I must admit, it's nice carrying the GM-5 with the 12-32mm kit zoom for casual shooting. So light and great image quality. Thank you for another excellent video.
Thanks for sharing.
Good topic. The enthusiast discussion seems to often favour a view where only FF matters. But sometimes weight and portability are more important than maximum image quality, prompting the use of MFT or APS-C instead. And fun is another factor altogether: I’ve had a lot of fun - and still do - using the Nikon 1 V1 camera with its one inch, ten megapixel sensor. Would I use it in professional work? Likely not. But it offers something unique: the jpeg files straight from that camera have a specific film-like quality that appeals to me more than lugging a bigger FF camera around, taking pictures and then fixing them in post production to look like the photos were shot on film. So, for each purpose you have to add up pluses and minuses and see what combination of factors equals the end result and expected experience.
Thanks for your comment. I forgot the fun part altogether😀
Professional photography is getting weird occupation if the photographer loses choice of equipment and has to use certain equipment to have professional visibility. I would better do something different than to be tied to Canon FF bulb in order to be commercial photographer. It seems permanent lockdown is better than this.
This is because 95% of the enthusiasts are either wedding/events/portrait photographers where DOF and low-light performance matters or armchair photographers who buy expensive gear use it once or twice and put it on a shelf to collect dust.
@@LevAizik Shallow DOF is not always good. The most responsive target of FF brainwashing are young photographers. They don't have experience.
@@sstansm7f I 100% agree.
Absolutely agreed. Why would any of us benefit from a reduction in choice. The more types, styles and technologies of photographic equipment the better. I use a wheelchair so Micro 4/3 is perfect for me because of the size and weight savings combined with great images (even compared to the small and light Pentax APS-C setup I had before). I still use a 35mm SLR for lots of things because even though it's "full frame", the lenses and bodies from the 70s and 80s were generally so much smaller and lighter than modern equivalents. I guess some people just like to justify their purchases but for the rest of us, live and let live!
Thanks for your comment and sharing.
I'm using MFT because of its affordable and small lens that they just used a small part in my backpack
Very sensible commentary! I have often wondered if the micro part of the name is a holdover from the days when Japan was famous for its brilliance in miniaturizing electronics. For a few decades we marveled at miniaturization, and I think the Japanese still value compactness to a greater degree than many countries. Perhaps Olympus and Panasonic were a bit naive in how the micro part of the name would be received in some parts of the world. They could still rebrand MFT as Mirrorless Four Thirds. Or Macho Four Thirds or Mighty Four Thirds. :D
Indeed. That might help explain why Micro Four Thirds is big in Asia (and tops in Japan, if you believe the sales numbers), while it struggles mightily in North America, where the "big is better" mentality holds strong.
I'm all for Mighty Four Thirds! :D
Excellent point!
And it should not have been called MICRO four thirds. Mirrorless four thirds would have been much better marketing. Using micro in the name diminished it it many people’s perception. Micro is tiny and insignificant, while the platform definitely is not insignificant.
@@ashleyblack327 yes, the overall size of the camera can be reduced, but using micro as part of the name was not the best choice in terms of marketing in some parts of the world, including the US.
Hi Matti- I completely agree with your point of view regarding the benefits and drawbacks of the different systems. One should use the system that works best for a particular situation. I use a "full frame" system for more serious work or when I don't have to carry it long distances. My MFT camera is used for hiking or for travel, when size and weight is a consideration. I also have a APS-C camera that can use the lenses of the full frame system. I also shoot film, mostly medium format, when I want to slow down and enjoy the experience of old-school photography.
Regarding your comment of the "Micro" part of the MFT name- I think that comes from the early days when Four-Thirds cameras still had a reflex mirror for the viewfinder. The "micro" was added to differentiate the mirror-less systems that came later.
Keep up the informative and entertaining videos.
~Earl
Thanks. Yes, I know the history of the Four Thirds etc., but I still think they could've come up with another name for this new system😀
G9 with all the Olympus PRO lenses have worked perfectly well for me. They fulfill all my needs, both for the photos and videos.
G9 has very good quality preamps, hence the sound is very clear and doesn't require any post processing to sound very well.
The videos produced by G9 are of superb quality (I use 4K 60p at all times), especially with the Olympus PRO lenses (I compared them with Leica and other lenses, and Olympus PRO is a clear win for me).
I mostly use Manual Focus in the videos, because I mostly film woodworking but also in sports like body building or calisthenics, the Manual Focus works fine.
On rare occasions I need to use Auto Focus, and it never let me down either. I experienced some pulsing in the corner while AF was acquiring focus on the 7-14mm Olympus PRO lenses. However on narrower lenses such as Olympus PRO 12-40mm or Olympus PRO 40-150mm + TeleConverter 1.4x G9 has no issues with the Auto Focus.
G9 is quite big and heavy, comparing to S5 FF body, they look very comparable. I would consider S5 or newer model to be my next camera, however, so far I don't feel I actually need it, and such a switch is very expensive, if I wanted to replace my current lenses ranges. I also have some Olympus PRO primes.
So imagine how much money I would have to invest in FF, to just meet my current setup.
I will probably live with M43 until Midi Format becomes cheap and popular, and then I will jump on that train.
Thanks for sharing.
Just an exceptional video, Matti, and thank you. It's about the images, i.e. photography, not the format. Cameras are just a tool. I am just an amateur hobby photographer. I shoot M43 probably 80+% of the time, but also APS-C, 35mm film, and yes, point and shoot (1" and 1/1.7 sensors). Like any tool, each has it's strengths and limitations of which I need to be mindful, but within those limitations, I enjoy them all. No interest in engaging in the format wars; I just enjoy shooting with all of my cameras. It's about my love of photography, not about format.
Thanks.
I have ended up with a combination of Fuji's APS-C (X100F) whenever I need to go light and Nikon F-mount FF system (2 cameras) for everything else, including occasional photography business. Also, as an owner of two Olympus OM bodies (yes - those original ones from '70s) I have always liked Olympus's E-M5 series for their design and portability. So - I may extend my gear with E-M5 II soon, I like its design more than E-M5 III's actually. What I still can't manage is to do the serious photography with mirrorless - I don't know why, but the classic DSLRs still give me the perfect mixture of great controls, great AF speed, the overall camera performance and the real scene view thanks to the optical viewfinders. I am really glad there's so many choices these days and that the classic DSLRs are still in the production.
Thanks.
Thanks matti...as ever your views are balanced and thoughtful based on practice and not on speculations...as an amateur interested in bird photography Micro four thirds offers great quality and reach at an affordable price and an unmatched advantage in terms of being the lightest to carry...with the Denoising technology making huge leaps,and with improvement in sensor technology and computational photography, there is every possibility of micro four thirds leap frog over all other formats at some point in time...this is a distinct possibility provided the manufacturers remain committed towards delivering the best and cost effective products to the consumers and not driven by just commercial considerations...in any case,the demand and supply dynamics will tilt the balance towards more cost effective innovations.
Thanks for watching and sharing your opinion.
I just bought a second G9 body. The current $997 price is unbeatable considering the features, build quality, ergonomics, perfect camera in all but lowest light conditions. No need to crop to death and prints large if image is good to begin with. The video is great. I don’t need to focus instantly on the eyes of fireflies darting about in the dark.
Thanks for sharing.
I've got a g9 coming tomorrow, definitely think it'll benefit me with the smaller lenses and the amazing Ibis. I've gone from 35mm film, to apsc, to now micro 4/3s. Tiny sensors are improving everyday with phone cameras.
Awesome, enjoy your new camera😀
Using different formats is clearly a luxury and using cameras is part of the pleasure of photography. Does gear matter ? Of course , it is true for musicians for painters etc....
MFT is really fine . It can be compact, affordable and nice to use. I hope there will be customers and products in the future.
Each sensor size has their place. I use them all! I recently (three years ago) discovered MFT when I bought a GH5 thinking I would only use it for video adapted with my Canon FF lenses. I added just two native Oly Pro lenses (7-14 and 40-150 2.8s) and was blown away when experimenting with this setup for stills too! MFT totally over performed to my previous expectations. MFT shall be a permanent part of my toolkit unimportant of future investments in larger sensor size cameras. Variety is the spice of life!🙏🏾
Hi Matti, If I only owned a FF camera I would take an estimated 80% less photographs than I do by shooting with both M43 & FF, I would get far less enjoyment from my photography. It’s simple, in my day to day work I can carry ample M43 gear for a range of compositions in a small camera bag. I don’t go out everyday just to shoot, I’m not a pro photographer, I put food on the table with my full time job. However, thanks to M43 I almost always have a camera with fantastic capability in the form of a G9 on hand. When I shoot studio, again amateur, and landscape I like to use the FF but in reality I could equally, well almost, use the G9 for all of my photography, but I enjoy using my FF camera and lenses too. If a camera serves my purpose I will work to master it the best I can and not blame the camera for my lack of knowledge or skill. There’s room for all formats whilst people want to use them. Nice topic, thanks Matti.
Thanks for your extensive comment.
I’ve used FF, APSC and now M4/3, they have their pros and cons but in my mind if you know what you are doing, you can get results with any camera you pick up, and every sensor size comes with its caveats. Great video !
Thanks.
My camera is compact, unobtrusive and weights only 420gr. Also, I can adapt all my beloved vintage lenses and focus with the very useful "focus magnification" facility when necessary. And yes, it is FF and delivers a perfect resolution. In the past, I had an Aps-C camera that made me hate picture taking because of the x1,5 factor which alterated all my wideangle lenses (I rarely shoot over 45mm).
Thanks for sharing.
I have m43 APSC and FF cameras: al small and portable because that's how I like cameras I have a Canon RP and a 5Dmkll, a Fuji X100V and several Lumix and Olympus cameras and lenses. The best IQ comes probably from the x100V, but for whatever reasons when I have to pick up something my hands always go for the m43. I have to make a conscious effort to pick any if the others, knowing I have a particular situation or light environment that might be a challenge. The point is that I simply prefer the convenience, lens size and overall package of a Gx9 a Pen F or a em5, probably because I much prefer the 4:3 image ratio to the 3:2 that comes with all other cameras. It makes shooting vertically so much more pleasing.
I'm not a professional photographer and I do never print wider the A2.
My best work I did with a Canon 450D and just 12 MP printing A0 Composite tables so I know I don't need more. If I were a full time portrait photographer with studio lights and all I'd probably go for a MF, but the truth is that I mostly don't know what I'm going to shoot and for landscape and Architecture photography m43 is so convenient with its high depth of field and 4:3 ratio which reduces the need for cropping the sides to cut out unwanted elements. Another plus is that you often can get things done with a small Jobi or pocketable tripod due to the light weight of the system and still produce amazing images even where tripods are not allowed.
Thank you for sharing.
I really dislike the 3:2 aspect ratio myself so when I was shooting film I mostly shot square or 4x5. I always feel the need to crop the 3:2 so having a native shorter 4:3 aspect ratio works better for me. I keep seeing comments everywhere on the internet about the ff high pixel cameras being better because they allow you to crop in without losing too much resolution and I think to myself "Why are you always needing to crop in?" "Are you also finding the native 3:2 aspect ratio doesn't work for you but you haven't realized that's the problem?" If the aspect ratio is one you enjoy working with, you can frame up your shots just how you want them so there's no need to crop in and lose pixels. Maybe native aspect ratios in cameras are something that will change in the future? Even TV and computer screen shapes have changed over the years.
@@CarolyneMacMillan Exactly!
I find myself keep cropping when I'm using 3:2 camera and much less with 4:3
Matti, I use my G9 for canoe slalom and kayak race events, where equipment bulk and weight matter, when riverside, and the auto focus is great!
Thanks. That sounds like a lot of fun😀
I have all three systems, Micro 4/3, APSC & Full Frame. I enjoy using them all; for sure each system has its place for different types of photography. Matti, keep up with your great work in bringing the most up to date information on camera gears and inspiration to your viewers globally. 👍👍👍
Thank you.
What are basic advantages for each system, for video?
I use apsc en fullframe. I like them both. For lowlight fullframe is better. When I need reach in good light i use apsc.
Really agree with you that enjoying your camera is the key. I don't enjoy taking photos on a smartphone. So MFT became my take everywhere camera. I also use full frame.
I never owned an analog camera, and bought my first digital in 2000 (FujiFilm 2400z). I changed my camera every 3-5 years, but it always was a non interchangeable zoom compact or bridge (last one was Sony RX100 II). 2016 I bought G85 + 14-140 kit and the quality difference was huge! 4.5 years after I own about 10 lenses, including all the bright panasonic fixes (15mm f1,7, 20mm f1,7, 25mm f1,4 and 42,5mm f1,2) and some other cool stuff like Olympus 8mm f1,8 and 60mm 2,8 macro or MOG Primoplan 58 f1.9 II for MFT. But the only real big (huge) difference to my mobile phone (or older cameras) are portraits, full body, closeups everything. They are so much better using MFT + bright fixed lens!
Thanks for sharing.
It all boils down to the best tool for the job. I sold my Full Frame Nikon equipment because it was too heavy for me to use and also becoming out of date. I now use Olympus Em1 and am happy with the results.
You are right - full frame suits fine detail and super enlarged images, but if you simply post photos on the internet then sensor size is irrelevant.
Unfortunately there is no perfect camera, for example even a full frame like your LUMIX has a sluggish autofocus compared with other full frame bodies,
I agreed, I also use the mix of Sony A7RIV, A5100, Olympus E-M1 MKII, E-M10 MK II and Panasonic G85. I love them all, each has its strengths and weaknesses and served all the different situations very well. Full frame camera has gotten smaller like the Sony A7C, however, it isn't the most ergonomic, the lens system still contribute to the overall bulkiness and heavier weight, compared to the MFT.
I have MFT and APS-C Cameras. Not ultimatively bc of the sensor size differences but in the different styles the cameras allow me to shoot. I use MFT mostly for Macro and Tele work bc of the 2x crop factor where you can get closer to your subject. The Olympus IBIS comes in handy as well. My APS-C Fuji is the main street machine bc of the awesome JPEG Film Sims and the fact that you can better adapt vintage ff glass in therms of focal lengths (Love the Schneider Kreuznach Curtagon 35mm f2.8!)
Full frame for portraits and landscapes, m43 for video!using Oly 10mkii for video and an old beat up D70 for family meetings!
Great video without bashing one or the other!
Thanks 👍
I use full frame, APS-C and M4/3 cameras and lenses. Works for me. If forced to choose one format out of these three it would certainly be the M4/3, However for superb autofocus and low light high ISO photography without flash, my Sony full frame is miles ahead. However overall I just enjoy using Panasonic cameras more. Also Olympus, of which I have one which is also very satisfying.
I use my gh5 for everything and i am very happy with it but i will buy a full frame camera too. I will use it for portraits and some filming. For longer lenses , streetphotos and filming as well i will use gh5 mostly
thank you for this reflexion, I'm myself preparing to complete my GH5/GH5s with a S5...
Same here =D Got gh5, g9 and gh5s but S5 seems to be on the horizon. Mainly for stills :P
I have started with MFT and can say that I have a full range of lenses including some 4/3 with adapter which are awesome (150 f2 for example). I have now and Sony system and use both for not professional photography only for fun and relax. With Sony is easy to use both systems (if you buy a asp-c body with FF lens) so now I have view of 3 system formats :).
Thanks for sharing.
I'm shooting Fuji and Panasonic. I enjoy the menus and handling better on the Panasonic.
Thanks!
I prefer full frame because of the advantages and Lumix S5 size is perfect for me. I dont like to have several cameras and lot of lenses , just one fits all. I dont like to have too much equipment. Thats why before buying a camera, I take my time to choose wisely
Thanks for sharing.
The best is BOTH. The tricky part is that the choice has to obtain complementarity on your gears
totally agreed, I like all formats, including compact cameras, last summer I used a lot also my little canon sx740 hs, and I like the prints which came out of it, of course I have a full frame and 2 aps-c systems too, from different brands, but I can't help not liking smartphone photography, I use smartphones only to scan documents, or record a whiteboard or remember a product I see in a shop....for any real photos I don't like them.....
Totally agree. Have your ever had the experience that you wanted to like or love something or someone, but it did not work out? That is me and FF/MFT. FF pictures are great, but the equipment is simply too heavy for me to carry around every day. And with MFT the picture quality is simply not the best (plus some cameras are big, too). Now I have settled for APS-C (again), seems to be the best compromise. Like in a good marriage ;-)
Thanks. Happy to hear you have found the best system for you😀
I love micro four thirds. I think they are definitely complimentary. I think the only thing holding the system back at the moment is that a new camera hasn't come out that would benefit from a new sensor or new auto focusing technology.
Yes, MFT needs a new sensor to be attractive.
Thanks for the excellent video!
I have Lumix GX85, Sony A58, Nikon D600, Sony HX50V, Olympus Stylus 1s and off course Google Pixel series. Everything works just fine for me. I use different cameras in different situations and demands. To me better glass is more important than camera body.
I use GX80 with few lenses when I fly on vacations or for business. G9 for vacations with car (also could be thousand and more kilometres). And finally Pentax for outdoor trips in hard conditions. Pentax is like a tank - snow, ice, rain, mud, sand, it doesn't matter. On other side, last summer in Saxony Switzerland, G9 was perfect in long mountain trips.
Thanks for sharing!
@@mattisulanto, in mountain trekking you understand very quickly - why MFT. After few hours, every kilogram is already three or five.
Both, a soon I can afford it. Travel Lightweight vs. creative Control. One is more suited for the former, one for the other. And from my point, the difference is not that much that you can't achieve creative control with mft.
I like MFT for my outdoor and hunting adventures because I don't have to tow a little wagon behind me for my gear. The best camera is the one you can take with you and have fun with. I've never had fun taking pictures or video with my phone they just aren't interesting.
Competition is good! There is no benefit from a format dying out. We're the ones that benefit from having variety and from manufacturers innovating and competing with each other. FF mirrorless wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't for M43 and other sensor sizes.
If Panasonic are smart they will recognise that people want to use both. They will make the GH6 with identical ergonomics, form factor, menus, and peripheral compatibility (cards, batteries, battery grip, XLR adapter etc) as the S5 (although they might squeeze in a full size HDMI connector).
Very nice explanations. Thanks. For personal stuff I use Fujifilm APS-C, and for paid mostly Canon FF, sometimes Fujifilm, so can relate a lot to your video.
Thanks for watching.
I rented an A7III last summer, and compared it to my GH5. In some of the photos taken on a clear sunny day, it was easy to see that the pictures from my GH5 had noise in the sky at very low ISO. And the Sony photo was nice and clean.
This was surprising for me, since you only ever hear that noise is a problem at high ISO, and in the shadow/ darker areas of a photo taken with m4/3.
Thanks for sharing.
Noise is produced by all electronic components, not just the sensor. It depends of design, quality and internal temperature, among other things.
Blue sky is the worst scenario as only 1/4th of pixels are active. Just use ETTR and the problem is mostly gone.
I lost a bid on a full frame camera system so I bought a second gh5 😅
Good balanced commentary Matti. I can totally understand why you didn't go deeper into the back-breaking disadvantages of a FF system! I always wonder if it is optically possible to produce a "reverse converter" to mount a m4/3 lens onto FF, at perhaps a loss of two stops of light.
Glad you enjoyed it! I'm not an optical designer, but I guess anything is possible.
I like "all" camera's no matter what brand or sensor size. The photo world would be less fun with fewer choices. I do not have a 24x36 sensor camera yet, but it will come, I have a bunch of 35mm vintage lenses I would like to adapt. Even sensor resolution can give a great look, I love my 5MP Oly E-1. I should add I shoot with a mFT camera, love the size & weight, perfect for hiking and around town.
I think they're both great for deferent purpose. great content thank you for sharing.
Thanks for watching!
Full Frame industry needs MFT. MFT fills the gap between mobile phones and Full Frame. We are old people and we already know to use a camera, but young people who have never used a photography camera are not going to move from their mobile phone to a 4.000 euro Full Frame Sony camera with a 1.000 euro lens. That will never happen because "the gap is too big". They will no do that "just to try". MFT makes very easy to move to cameras. Later, only they think they need it, they may go to a Full Frame camera. I would say that 95% of the Sony a7S iii users have used before a Lumix camera. MFT is needed.
Thanks for sharing.
I own a FF DSLR and a MFT GX85. I carry both systems in my bag even when I travel. I almost never reach for the MFT! I prefer the feel, optical viewfinder and image quality of a full frame camera. This is after buying the Lumix GX85 to replace my heavy DSLR when traveling. It just didn't work out. How about noise and loss of detail in low light? You can compare images taken in perfect conditions but let's compare low light photos.
Thanks for sharing!
Hi Matti! Last week I bought on occasion ten yo Lumix GH2 16MP. It’s smaller and lighter than my main Olympus -M1 mark III and it performs very nice in AF, face detection and colour rendering. I don’t see it’s lagging too much behind E-M1 mark II but it’s more compact and has less weight. That’s fine for me and I will use it. Now, about formats. In my opinion involving customers in sensor size wars is most horrible thing that Japanese photo Corps do. I hate them for that. In my opinion the sensor size is part of whole imaging technology and customers should be bothered only by final result and consider only quality of pictures produced by the camera. If the picture quality is in direct corresponding to sensor size then one has to decide what quality you and your customers need. The quality is measured in terms of spatial resolution and dynamic range. So these measurement theoretically can go infinite and eventually one has to decide which order of magnitude is sufficient. It’s just common sense. It’s impossible to embrace infinity. But as I see that MTF is attacked from FF side I suspect that really MFT fits most demands so that FF is really niche formats. But all the brands are Japanese corporations and Japan economy depends on photo equipment sells too. Moving customers mostly to more cheap MFT will harm corporations. So it’s also economical and political issue. So there is strong Japanese sentiment that MFT better to die than to continue bankrupt industry. The ppl in industry simply want to eat and drink. So think they urge to suck from us as much money as possible. It’s simply life and they are not angels doing only good for mankind for free.
Thanks for you extensive comment and analysis of the situation.
Have both, m43 is fun!
Nowadays, MFT is my big camera, my G7X (1 inch sensor) goes anywhere, takes awesome pictures too. 😁
same here :) great combo. Sometimes I use both.
Given recent strides in AI driven software for image upsizing and increased resolution, I see that smaller sensors, M43 or FF, can deliver huge prints. So instead of larger format camera sensors , perhaps new post processing CPU power will be the mandate? This evolution may breathe some life into film scanning as well. I’m just speculating, of course!
Hi Matti good subject, thanks for putting it out there. For me each of these formats, and others are relevant. I do agree that if you master your camera, you will have a very good chance of shooting a quality shot, but I guess the word quality is subjective also; pixel peeping, focus, subject, composition to name a few... , what ever does it for you! For example, i don’t take my FF with me each day, I take the a m43, it’s alway in my car along with a couple of choice lenses and fully charged spare batteries; for the studio or for landscape I take the FF camera, although I do use the M43 occasionally for these genres too. I also print my own work and the M43 20mp camera prints are excellent so long as you don’t over reach on the size of the print, A3 at 240 dpi is great but i’ve also gone to A2, but has to be from a tripod even with the great IBIS and OIS combined, wel for me anyhow, a good quality photography printer helps with this. You don’t have as much scope in post with M43 as you do FF sensor with more Mp’s so getting it right in camera is important with larger prints from an M43 because you don’t lose data by pushing the raw image too far which is all too easy to do, cropping is a factor with smaller sensors too of course. Why anyone would like to see the end of M43 is beyond me, I’m hoping that M43 hangs in there for some time to come and looking forward to the next iteration, the GH6 from Lumix. The G9 thatcI have is nothing short of superb, you’ve just got to master the camera like any camera and you will not be disappointed. FF and other formats work for me too as mentioned above, I would even considering medium format in future if I could justify it. BTW, the GX9 is a beauty of a camera for street photography, even in low light with a decent fast lens, and despite what some say you can achieve higher shutter speed with good exposure and low ISO with it if you just learn the setting and sort out a custom mode for yourself. Master the settings and the AFC rarely lets me down. So you just have to stop blaming the gear and master the gear or you’ll never be happy with any camera.
Thanks for sharing, many interesting points.
I only have an APSC Sony A6000, but I like the idea of the MFT. Just like M42 back in the day it's actually a standard that is used by different brands, we need more of that. You can get quite a lot of lenzes for MFT for decent prices. There's also enough for my Sony, but we need less proprietary lenzes (and electronics and accessories in general) in my opinion.
I might be wrong, but a lot of the hate stems from many m4/3 ambassadors in the past going why they chose m4/3 instead of full frame. Some of the reasons are valid, while others seem to be spreading misconceptions about full frame. This is especially so in recent times when full frame prices have dropped drastically in recent years and the sizes of the bodies have become smaller. In some regions, the cost of the em1 mark 3 is more than the sony a7iii or a7c, eos rp etc.. Also the APSC bodies have achieved similar size and similar prices with many m4/3bodies. Of course, lens sizes are smaller. I do agree though that every system has their place. Also more systems, allow for more competition and more variety for consumers so everyone benefits.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
i sold my 5d iii and changed to sony a 7iii a camera able to deliver very good iq but i never had the feeling of thats my camera! last year i bought a used olympus e m1 ii and it has incredible ergonomic, very good iq,, incredible lenses, good af and an infinity of possibilities and most important its a joy to use.
Thanks. I know what you are talking about. Some cameras just feel right and some not and if the camera doesn't feel right, the specs don't matter much. I'm not referring to Sony specifically, but in general.
Hello Matti,
I changed 2018 to Lumix MFT, mainly driven by the smaller size and weight. Especially for wildlife photography the weight and size are a real benefit compared to FF. As I’m a hobby photographer I’ll never buy a second system in parallel. Of course I’m aware that FF has some advantages in special situations, but I can live with that. The picture quality was sufficient at any time. During astrophotography I sometimes reach the limit of my system, but thats ok, as I know that I saved a lot of money and the system is easier to transport.
Cheers, Joerg
Thanks for sharing.
Here is the strategy I have been using for years.
For wide angle lenses I use FF. I like fast lenses and high ISO low noise results. So without naming brands, I use 14-24mm 2.8 FF.
To get the same results with M43 lenses in DOF and high ISO in camera results I don't think there are such fast zooms available.
I use a AF 24mm f1.4 lens of super high IQ low distortion and a camera that is FF and has higher MP and can deliver shallow DOF and low noise at higher ISO. M43 is right now only giving us 20mp, and not so good AF .
Now I do like M43 for Telephoto and have a great 40-150mm f2.8 lens with TC that is about 420mm and half the size and weight of
a FF lens that doesn't exist, and if it did it would be $10,000. M43 cameras could give you 7 stops of IBIS so you can hand hold the Telephoto instead of having to use a tripod. I think there is a synergy between M43 and FF where their best traits work well together.
Thanks. Your strategy makes sense.
I had several digital cameras, from crop (Leica M8) to FF (M9 und Sony A7) to MFT (Olympus Pen F). In the end I found that size matters, and that I get the most bang for the buck with - MFT. Better image quality with the M9 and Sony A7? Yes, slightly (nobody notices the difference when shown the images). Can I have the pixel-shift hi-res mode for my "scanning" needs (nice for a 4x5 negative) for the same money as with MFT? Nope. But what really drove me away from FF is lens sizes (and prices) - most lenses for mirrorless are as huge and heavy as lenses were for medium format 6x6 back then, or even larger. That's not cool. If I want big and heavy, I'll take my 4x5 … ;-)
Thanks for sharing.
I love the small mft size like GM5 with Pan 42.5mm/1.7. And the GX8 with Tilt view finder. Since some weeks I have a G9 with even more increased Image Quality. And even in astrophotography I could increase my skills a lot. Still there are limitation behind the camera ;-) I am open minded to other systems but I like to have the phantastic menu that is pretty much similar over generations of Panasonics - also bridge cam.
And it would be also a question of money - I prefer to invest in new lenses that makes the image ...
Thanks for the video, you said it very well. When I see negative and even strong words against M43, I just don't get it. Why? Are those people threatened somehow? Surely there is a place for different systems.
One argument that annoys me is when they talk of bokeh as if M43 can't do it! Or they say it isn't "easy". But it is super easy to get with almost any lens. In any case why the obsession with shallow depth of field, often we don't want it, as in macro photography. Different tools for the job.
At the end of the day it is just gear, who cares what format it is, just take photos and be happy 🙂
Thanks for your opinion.
Another thoughtful piece. Photography has always been part religion/part politics for some people, whom I often find annoying. All that really matters is the end result, and hardware won’t get there there, it is just a tool. Noise? Software like Topaz DeNoise AI levels the playing field with my GX8 and G9. Higher resolution? Unless you are printing very large formats, you are kidding yourself that you need it. I love my collection of M43 lenses, and I have developed an especially close affinity for my G9. I have also had an X100T for years, just upgraded to an X100V. And some of my best pictures have come from my smartphone. I would challenge anyone correctly identify which pictures came from which camera.
Thanks for your excellent comment again.
I use the Olympus MFT System and I am very happy with it. The most important reason for me is, that I like to shoot Birds with long Telephoto lenses. They are much more affordable within the MFT-System with great Quality. The whole System is then still always with me, when I go out hiking.
Pherhaps I will buy a FF-Camera in the future for shooting Stageperformances and in Low-Light in general. Not the best Places for MFT.
Hope all the Sensors will stay for a long time!
Thanks.
Likewise I'm in the fortunate position to be heavily invested in both Lumix MFT and Nikon FF. My Nikon DSLRs couldn't be more different than my mirrorless Lumix kit! Both have their advantages and disadvantages over each other. For absolute image quality my Nikon D750 & D850 trounce my G9 but my FF lenses and bodies are massive and much heavier by comparison. I feel I get excellent images from both systems, this sensor war is frankly ridiculous in my opinion.
Very much enjoyed this video. I shoot both FF and MFT. I have old cameras and not the best glass. I'm still happy with my images, and I really think that's what Matti is trying to say. Let's all just enjoy the wonderful experience that is photography. However I do rather love my Leica m3 ☺️ thanks Matti for the great video 👍
Thank you.
About 45 years ago, when I learned the skills, we used Linhof, Sinar, Toyo... (4*5" to 8*10") für best quality, Hasselblad, Rollei, Mamiya... (4,5*6cm, 6*6cm, 6*9cm) as Workhorses and "the small ones" (24*36mm / FF) for standard-jobs, street, travel, wildlife... Each of them had its right for living... Know them all, master them all and pick the one you need for your job! That's it!
Privately I worked about 20 years with Minolta (MF), 20 years with Canon (AF) and now about 5 years with Panasonic MFT ... I love the small size of the very good lenses.
Is there any competitor to the 1.7 /10-25mm in FF? ;-)
The discussion is the same about zooms and primes... absolutely in vain...
Thanks. There is no similar zoom in FF, which would be 20-50mm F3.5.
@@mattisulanto I know so... ;-)
...thought of 1.7 / 20-50mm... :-)
@@AndreBerg99 No such either, but that would be a completely other lens.
In my opinion, you shouldn‘t use two systems. You can buy any lens for any purpose and shoot everything with microfourthirds. People should free themself. My question to you: You have a 50MP fullframe camera with heavy 24-70 2.8 lens and a small MFT camera with a small lens and now you go on a trip to shoot lanscape. You always ask yourself, should I take the big or small gear. Maybe you end up using fullframe, because you have a better feeling because of the more flexible raw files in editing. Another day, you feel unconfortable to use a big expensive camera on a place where nobody is carrying a camera, so you decide to take the small camera. Sometimes later, you browse all your pictures and the only reason, you were not happy with your pictures, is because you fail yourself. There is nearly never a case, where the bigger sensor make the difference between a good and a bad picture. We all know this.. places, no light.. ISO6400 and motion blur. There are situations, where you better shouldn‘t take pictures and don‘t think, that a bigger sensor helps out. And yes, there are situations, where a bigger sensor makes sense, but to be honest, most of our pictures don‘t need it.
Thanks for your opinion. Like I said, whatever works for you😀
I enjoy my m43 system because it is so much smaller than FF. Fairly consistently, lenses are half of the weight of FF (at equivalent spec) and often half the price too. The IQ, while not as good as FF, is still plenty good for my needs and for the vast majority of photographers. Most people just post their pictures in low resolution online anyways.
For me the selection of one format or the other (assuming that you have to choose) is pretty easy:
1) If you want something small, because like me you like to hike up mountains with it or you like to travel, then m43 is a no-brainer.
2) If you want the highest quality and don't have to carry your gear very far, then FF makes more sense.
APS-C and Medium are the formats that don't make sense to me:
3) APS-C is kinda the "worst of both worlds" with the size of lenses approaching FF and IQ not significantly better than m43. So what purpose does it serve?
4) Medium format only produces images of marginally better IQ than FF, so why would anyone bother with extra size, cost and limitations (mostly speed, limited lenses) for it? Only a very few niche photographers will ever notice the difference between FF and Medium in IQ.
Thanks for sharing.
MFT brought me back to photography.
I personnaly choose mft for the compacity, traveling. By the way i'm not a fan of g9 or gh5, i found those cameras too big, hope panasonic built a new gx8 with weathersealed and all the lenses pass thru the weathersealed too. Thank's for the video 👍
the GX8 is weather sealed.no need for a new camera. I regularly still use my GF1 and the rendering is beautiful and the IQ blows away even my brand new iPhone. Currently the newer cameras only offer faster AF, faster bursts, and more image stabilization.
@@alang253 Maybe a better sensor for a new camera?
@@c.augustin if specs/mp are the driving force but not much has changed with m43 sensors in the past 5 years. I personally can't tell much of a difference with G9 (20mp), GX8 (16mp), and sometimes GF1 (12mp) files and the output is more than good enough. This is true for a lot of other camera systems, where ILC's have reached a point where you are paying more for features and maybe slightly bumps in MP # but the IQ difference is negligible. This is a good thing, this means you can keep your camera for a long time, or buy older cameras and be just fine. Don't fall victim to the spec marketing
@@alang253 Oh, I don't listen to spec marketing - but I can see a clear difference between my Pen F (20 MP) and my E-M10II (16 MP) in certain situations, and 16 MP is not enough for my needs (20 MP is, but less noise in the sky or with higher ISO settings would be nice). There *is* a need for improved sensors, and BSI could help to get there. I'm still hoping to see such an improved sensor in 2022, but more likely I'll go with the improvements that were made already in the E-M5III (should be similar to the G9, or even slightly better). I agree that overall IQ is already high, but I would say "not quite there" for MFT.
@@c.augustin For sure, all valid points that I agree with and I'm hoping for major sensor improvements also. I was just on DPreview's review of the S5 and comparing the studio test shot with the G9 the only thing difference I could tell was noise. For me practically speaking it's never affected my photos and could never justify the size/weight/price gains to go FF. I wasn't too happy with my G9 in challenging low light with fast shutter speeds but once I started properly exposing noise has become less of an issue (no need for Topaz denoise anymore). You can't really underexpose then recover in post like you can with FF (a workflow I despise anyway), but nailing your exposure will yield similar acceptable results in MFT
Compré una GH4 en diciembre, pero conservé mi vieja Sony alpha a65. La GH4 es mi primera cámara en MFT y ha sido una experiencia bastante dura. No me acostumbro al sistema de enfoque en video y me cuesta mucho usarla en manual cuando hago fotografía. Creo que poco a poco podré dominarla y llegar a sentirme cómodo con ella. Ahora uso la SONY para mi trabajo en fotografía y todavía no he hecho mi primer trabajo en video con la Panasonic. Sé que es una cámara capaz de buenas imágenes, solo que todavía se me hace natural usarla. La verdad quisiera una sola cámara que me permitiera hacerlo todo. Quisiera probar la Sony 7c, pero por ahora está fuera de mi alcance.
I Have mft. I think is great sistem, but sometimes I would like to have a FF or bigger sensor...
I didn't quickly find if this is commented. Word Micro was taken in front of Four Thirds (which was the earlier DSLR format of bigger cameras and lenses due to the mirror) to somehow differentiate the new smaller mirrorless systems from the previous system but still tell that the sensor size is the same. Not perhaps the best choice as Matti pointed out. What about: Compact Four Thirds? Or New Four Thirds?
Thanks for sharing. I know where the name comes from, but what you suggest would probably have been better.
@@mattisulanto I know you knew it : )... Comment was for the audience who perhaps have come later into the system.
As an owner of many vintage manual lenses, the Panasonic S5 provides high quality images at their original focal length. This makes for economical photography. However as I carry a camera pretty much everywhere, the S5 is too big for casual use so the GX80 and pancake lens live in a jacket pocket.
Image quality should be an aesthetic judgement, not a technical one. I agree m43 should stand for Mirrorless Four Thirds.
Thanks for sharing.
I have Fuji Aps-c several bodies xpro1, and 2 xt2 and lenses, Canon Full frame several bodies and lenses, Panasonic GH3, G9, GH2 , LX100, and lenses, also Olympus bodies and lenses including the omd em10 iv. I see m43 kind of like 35mm half frame. Even though m43 has wonderful potential for small bodies I definitely think you can make it too small. I prefer the size of the G9 to the GH3. I used (until the pandemic) the Gh3 and G9 in real estate shoots and they did fabulous work with the 7-14 lens. That 7-14 is a great lens, (beware the reflections), but it has been a great investment. M43 needs high quality reasonably priced glass and a bump in resolution to compete. Panasonic needs, depending on who you talk to, phase detect autofocus. Personally it does not matter to me but it does to some. I stay away from SONY due to ergonomics, prices, menus, and other reasons, Nikon I am concerned about investing in and since I have a lot of Canon, I can't see myself going to Nikon. The truth is most people don't need more than even 15 mpix, the LX100 did need a bump in resolution. The high resolution modes on the G9 work nicely but in my work I don't use it. I am in favor of all kinds and formats of cameras. When you look at the new R system the lenses are not thinner even if they played games with the new 70-200, unfortunately Canon does not have much selection in their M lenses for their smaller sensor, and frankly I don't want to use a giant sized lens repurposed to fit a small camera from a 3rd party. SMALL good lenses I would say should be a goal for every manufacturer, unfortunately as resolution has increased the glass has gotten more complicated in order to use the resolution. I think the sweet spot is maybe 30-35 megapixels on a FF in terms on reasonable glass. I would have preferred the Lx100 series to be a little larger in size with better and faster glass with a slightly longer reach.
Thanks for that extensive comment.
Clever girl! She should market them!
Thks for your reply
I think she is not interested in marketing them.
She has other things to pursue at the moment, work, studies etc.😀
Hi Matti,
Love your videos, they are always clear and precise.
I couldn’t help noticing on a few occasions you are out photographing, you wear this leather wriststrap, is this because of repetitive strain ?
I have looked online but cannot find one which is as wide and neatly formed to your hand as yours.
Perhaps you could let me know?
Much appreciated
Helen
Thanks so much! That strap is made by daughter and it's a one off😀 Actually there are two almost similar, but anyway, can't be bought anywhere. I like it better than other types of straps in most situations.
I have used full frame cameras since the 1970s with of course 35mm film and then digital FF right up to very recently. There’s no denying that Full Frame cameras give the ‘best image quality’, but IQ is not the only consideration. It has to be said that FF cameras and particularly full frame lenses are big and heavy in comparison to their MFT equivalents. I sold all my Canon FF equipment in September of last year and switched to using the MFT system entirely. I pretty much have the same amount of equipment in my backpack as I had before, but it weighs only about half of what I was carrying before I made the switch to MFT. As I get older, this is becoming more and more important to me.
Thank you for sharing.
I have both FF and M43. Since buying the GX9 two years ago, I rarely use my FF and instead added the G9. I agree with most of what you said except for 2 things. 1. FF is not superior, better yes, but not that much better and both are better than 35mm film which is ironic since film is measuring tape that started the problem. 2. The bigger the print, the less resolution is needed. If putting ones nose to a print to see microscopic detail is important than might as well go right to Medium format.
The "micro" in micro four thirds refers to it being mirrorless since it was revolutionary when introduced. I agree this is a poor choice of words for most of the world, but in Japan, this made it more attractive, which I suspect is why M43 still leads the market in Japan. They are obsessed with making things small.
mFT because it is the smallest professional System (&sensores getting better)
Why not both? My compromise is a G9 as main camera and a used Sony RX1 as "leightweight and small" secondary camera.
I agree with your points.I am not a professional photographer (I am an accountant), but I used both MFT (Olympus) and full-frame (Sony) extensively.
Sony is a workhorse. It is fantastic for portraits and events thanks to the best tracking algorithm on the market and the ability to shoot wide-angle shallow DOF shots, which are unachievable on MFT without shelling a lot of money on F1.2 prime lenses. But I will never take the Sony with me on my travels because it sucks as a traveling companion. The Ergonomics are horrible. The IBIS is non-existing. It is heavy with fast glass. The weather-sealing is mediocre at best. It is just awful for travel.
The problem is that most professionals are making a living from portraits and events because this is where the money is in the industry. Amateurs are satisfied with their smartphones. MFT is stuck between the hammer and the anvil, but I think that there will be enough MFT users to support the format in the years to come.
Thanks for sharing.
Hi Matti, I agree with your video. And with all the others too btw....Good explaining about the FF naming. Back in the 80’s I used to make slides with my Pentax Super A, MX, MeF, ME super etc. Than the Nikons 301 and 501. Nice Ff camera’s......today I am using for a hobby both the G9 and the S5, after switching from Sony a6300 and rx10iii last year because even after 10 years of Somy’s, I could not get used to the terrible menu system and the Lumix has far more usable features also. the only Sony I will not sell is my RX100iv. So in a sense I upgraded sensorwise from 1 inch to mft.... and downsized from the a6300 apsc to mft . No problem at all. And another thing; my a6300 had AF difficulties in darker situations when shooting video, which my G9 has not. That is the opposite from what I used to read about AF and Lumix.....About the s5; I really like this camera for the crisp and ultrasharp pictures and video quality. But then again; the G9 I am fond of too. Especially with the 12-60 or 100-300 on it. So I use them both. It is just about personal taste and need. Sometimes I just like playing with the gear just because of the gear. Has nothing to do with taking a picture, but hey, it is what I like doing and when shooting, I even more enjoy taking the S5 or G9 with me. So as far as I am concerned, both systems can stay.....last word about iphone: From time to time I find it a challenge to only take the iphone with me and get the most out of it picture wise. How cool is that! 10 yrs ago I didn’t even have a smartphone.....wish you all the best Matti and thanks for your channel.
Thanks for sharing your story!
M4/3 gets a bad rap.
We need as many photography brands and formats for photohraphers: 1. Choice, 2. Competition = better Priceing for consumers, 3. weight and size!
Look at history on tech and products. The first cameras were huge, the Civil War camera was mounted on a wagon and had to be pulled around with horses or look at the first computer that filled a whole room.
Look what the iPhone can do, How big is that sensor and it can outperform many older pro cameras and pro lenses!
The iPhone is like a Swiss army knife: its a muti tool, cameras are tool nothing more.
You could have $10,000 worth of camera gear hanging around your neck as a journalist to document an accident (real & they made a Meme about it) but the female reporter used a smartphone! Why? Because it was the right tool to take photos & video out live or as soon as she finished recording. No rushing to get back to a computer to download the files then to send them out. No camera can do this yet, Well samsung did have a camera that could upload but it got no love from the photography community just like the first flip screens in a camera!
There is a place for all and as fast a tech is moving it will just get better.