I have a 40" x 30" print on my living room wall, which was shot raw with a GX80, and processed in lightroom. It looks absolutely stunning, even under close inspection. MFT is definitely still very much 'all systems go' in 2019, and the weight difference is amazing. I carried the GX80 plus three lenses around europe this summer, whilst pushing my disabled wife in her wheelchair, barely noticing I was carrying them.
I sold off my Canon FF system because as an old man it was getting far to heavy. I invested in a Lumix system based around the G80 and I love it. Light, great features and perfect for my needs.
Well done. As a full frame professional photographer (Nikon Z6 & other Nikon FF Bodies) here in the States I use my GX85 as a secondary, street & on the go camera. Its perfect and I do it for all the reasons you provide. Great stuff btw. I enjoy your videos and grading style.
Two years ago I dropped my phone, into a marble floor, needless to say it broke beyond repair. As a photographer I began thinking about buying a high-end cameraphone. But while browsing through the internet and reading reviews about fake bokeh etc. I realized that for less money I could actually buy a small second hand system camera... And a real camera will always beat a phone (imo). I ended up buying a cheap phone and a used Panasonic GX7, small enough to fit in my regular bag, meaning that I could always have it with me. Have hardly used my dslr since. It's difficult to explain but the GX7 has so much character, it doesn't feel as if i'm using a lifeless instrument but rather an artist's brush. And paired with manual lenses shooting feels rather like painting, as if I am truly capturing the world around me as I myself interperets it. It's a lovely system and I appreciate Panasonic and Olympus for being brave enough to design vintage inspired cameras with lots of character. The only downside for me is the cropfactor, this can make it hard to find wide lenses and makes it difficult to use legacy lenses. Also the diffraction caused by the small sensor above F11. Both a Pro and Con is the large DoF, this makes the camera good for landscape and environmental shots but can make it difficult to get short depth of field / nice bokeh. But all in all... Hell yeah. Get yourself a M4/3 camera if you want something fun to shoot with! I recently bought a second GX7 :)
I think its awesome that Full Frame is getting more affordable these days. So no problems with that. I think the biggest problem is that all these youtubers make people nuts about FF because of the shallower depth of field and better low light. But, it’s all about making photos: mft is an awesome platform... Often I’m at an event where people have big canons, sonys, nikons etc. When they see my silver GX8 with brown leather case, I always get a lot of compliments! And the photo’s are great as well. If MFT is dead, Panasonic Leica 10-25mm wouldnt came out this year. Cant wait for new type of lenses for the platform!
I havethe gx80and love it. Traveling is so much easier and the handluggage is not filled with just a camera. got the Leica 12-60, the 17.5 mm and got the 45 mm 75 % off at a bancrupsy sale. Great setup. Had the EOS 5D MII before and remember a heavyHongkong trip with 2 lenses...
I am a Lumix gx8 user and I love micro fourth third sensor small compact and he it was the reason why a re enjoy taking pictures with a camera. I do half of my work un low ligh or night photography and if I don't say that it was made with a micro fourth third sensor you will never find out!
I have both and the FF sits on the shelf most of the times. For street photography you cannot beat M43. Light, discreet and with more Dof. In normal light there is no difference in IQ in my opinion, even when printing fairly large. When you get a little older it becomes a drag to lug heavy bodies and even heavier lenses.
For street or travel photography, I actually prefer a much smaller camera like my Oly TG4 which I can shoot most of the time without being notice. Surprisingly, I can still print up to A3 size. With a very small camera like a TG4, very few people bother with what you shoot and that is a very good thing. It is the result that matters. I can have a collection of photos even a bigger, more expensive camera can't achieve. One of the main advantage of using the TG4 is that it is completely waterproof. Thus, I can shoot in any weather anywhere. I can also shoot with one hand while holding the umbrella in the other when it is freezing cold, windy and raining, not on some mountain but just walking the streets in Vienna, Austria. Try doing this with a DSLR or a full frame mirrorless camera.
This depends on the ISO you are using. Beyond ISO 800, MFT is falling apart. I know all the Fanboys here don’t want to hear that but it’s a fact. I typically take my Wildlife pictures early morning or evening when the light is poor. Sorry to say, MFT is a better noise generator in such moments whereas a Full Frame in the 24MP range still delivers.
@@helio-c2525 Oh how poor is such a comment. You don't want to get facts, you just one of these rubbish M43 Fanboys. Do you really believe by ignoring the fact the physics will change? Get a real life, dude.
@@Stefan1968ful so you don't have any photographic credentials do you? Physics says MFT has plenty of resolving power and light gathering power for most photographers at half the price and weight. If you debate that then back it up, start with your own photography. Convince me. You must be an extremely insecure person to spend so much time trolling MFT forums.
I love my GX85 camera and use this as my lightweight travel setup. You forgot to mention the main benefits of full frame -these would have to be better dynamic range,better low light performance and consequently the possibility for faster shutter speeds for given light making them much better for action.
I think the MFT is one of the most underrated systems out there. I currently have the Sony A7R II and Olympus E-M10 II and can see the advantages of both. When I go hiking in the hills and mountains I usually take my E-M10 II for the weight saving most of the time. The E-M10 II is definitely a better looking camera and wants me to pick it up more than my Sony, but as you mentioned full frame has different advantages.
For someone who does Shooting at Agricultural shows. M43 it's excellent I really really get worn out lugging huge glass with me, and Olympus is just great.
Great video, I appreciated the insight. I currently have a Nikon D5300 and I’m getting a Yi M1. I have no intentions of going full frame, I do however intend to ditch DSLR and go to Mirrorless.
Of course it still makes sense, and how. The balanced way is the couple: micro 4/3 together with the FF. The APCS-C pair together with the FF no longer makes any sense (apart from brands that only use APS-C).
i don't get the gripe about shallow depth of field i can get crazy shallow dof with my 20mm 1.7, i own an old panasonic gf2, canon 5d3 and 7d, i almost always for the m43. it's so sharp! and the images just look good all the time! i really want that gx85 tho!
A 20mm f/1.7 on MFT produces images similar to what a 40mm f/3.5 does on full frame. It does not deliver 'crazy shallow dof, but has about the same capabilities in subject isolation as a full frame kit lens.
@@MrAddison79 That's beside my point. No matter how shallow the dof on that MFT lens is, it won't match what full frame can deliver. So what you call 'crazy shallow' is actually very mediocre by comparison. I mean, f/3.5 isn't fast by any means for a full frame shooter. Imagine you could open up your 20mm two stops further to f/0.9 - that's the depth of field you'd get with a 40mm f/1.8 on full frame. Not that you'd always need or want that, but it enables you to get good subject isolation at much greater subject distance when the situation calls for it. Shallow depth of field isn't an end in itself, it's an ability of full frame gear that grants more creative freedom and choice to the photographer.
The GX80/85 with the Panasonic 20mm/1.7 (II) pancake prime is also my main setup to carry around with me. Occasionally, I'll bring along the kit 12-32 kit pancake zoom in a pocket and switch off as needed. It produces great results, but, as you mention, there are limitations. It's like the difference between cooking with a microwave oven vs. a full gas range. One will do some jobs better than the other, and one will be much cheaper than the other. It really come down to how you intend to use them.
@@youknowwho9247 Nope, it does not. Ibis is garbage on most of the full frame cameras. Wtf are you talking about. You can't vlog with any full frame unless you have gimbal which makes twice as heavy.
@@OpenFilmmaker Well, an E-M1X costs 2500 bucks, so all of them. Unless you are looking for specific comparisons, which would make the question more manageable. Generally speaking though I'd say APS-C and MFT bodies cost about the same for comparable feature sets.
@@youknowwho9247 The GX85 with two lenses is $450. The G9 is under $1k. I have a video comparing the G85 to latest Sony a6100. The Sony lacks IBIS and costs more. Maybe you're looking at the high-end M43 and low-end APSc? But I agree with you that an APSc lens looks better on an APSc body. No need for the adapters.
One advantage which is related to size is especially prevalent in sports photography. Many stadia i.e. San Jose, CA's SAP Center restrict the length of lenses allowed in the stadium to 6" or shorter. For a full frame or APS-C that would exclude almost all telephoto lenses whereas for a m4/3 camera most lenses would be short enough. That would mean that if you wanted good shots with a full frame or APS-C camera, you would need to shell out big bucks for good seats whereas with a m4/3 camera, you can get away with getting cheaper seats and using a super telephoto lens like I did with my Olympus 75-300mm lens.
I sold my Z6 and now have this exact combo of GX80 and the 14-140. Well, I have 3 other lenses too, but my point is, it's clear where I stand on the subject :)
Yeah, I was one of them dreamers, that's why I bought it :) But all you need to do is to go check in a camera store how big are the good lenses. The ones that are f/2.8 and faster. I realized it's very inconvenient to carry them around. And wherever you take a huge camera like that from your bag, all heads turn in your direction. Trust me, don't bother. Unless you are a professional photographer/videographer and you NEED a full frame for making money, the smaller options are preferable.
The consumer grade lenses for FF are indeed smaller, but not very good. The pictures coming out them are simply somewhat flat and unimpressive. I see no point of buying lower quality lenses for my FF camera, just in the name of full frame. The reality is, good glass for FF is huge. There is just no way around it. Now, when I was shooting a 70-200 f/2.8 on the Z6, the pictures were gorgeous. Rich colors, more contrast, sharp, simply gorgeous. But the lens alone was bigger and heavier than my current camera and the 3 lenses for it. I tell this to anyone, who is lusting a FF system. They are the best in terms of IQ, but a) the size is huge and b) the price is high. I'm lucky to have b) under control somewhat, but the a) was a constant bugger. And if your gear is not "urging" you to pick it up and use it, what's the point of keeping thousands of $$$ in it?
@@momchilyordanov8190 You're missing the point. The cheapest, lightest full frame glass still outperforms the heaviest, most expensive MFT glass. That's because physics can't be cheated. Lenses that deliver the same results will have about the same size and weight across all different sensor formats. The difference is that in the full frame world, an f/5.6 lens is considered consumer grade and priced accordingly, whereas the corresponding f/2.8 lens in the MFT world is called pro and will cost a lot more. If one does the math correctly it becomes apparent very quickly that full frame is actually a lot better bang for one's buck than MFT.
Teo awesome stuff my man. Question, what were your picture profile settings in camera? I have the GX80 (GX85 here in the states for us Yanks lol) and I like how you were able to pull a decent amount of dynamic range out of it
Of course micro 4/3 surely worth buying in 2019 and for ever. Horses for courses. Each format has his pro's en con's. I have fullframe, aps-c and mft cameras (gh5, g9 and gx80). In the real world mft (not scientific comparing with numbers) is not crippled. Buy fast lenses (I own Vogtlander f 0.95 25 mm, f 1.7 15 mm. f 1.7 20 mm. With fast lensen and max iso800 I can handdle all light situations. What is also nice with mft? This gear is light and can be for pro photographers a reason to choose for mft. 3 bodies, many lenses in one bag, yes it can and you can travel light. If you cannot get great pictures with mft camera's such as Panasonic G9 and Olympus EM mark II you also will not succeed with a fullframe camera.
hey man, wow! honestly I was shocked when I listened to my track 'Distance' in this video! you were the reason I switched from my really old Canon Rebel T5 to the Panasonic Lumix GX80 and it's really good surprise haha thank you! would be amazing if you upload a video on how you color grade on that camera, I would appreciate it deeply!
Ohh wow, how cool's that!? Never would have thought you would watch one of my videos haha🙌🏼🙌🏼 Ohh that's great, happy to read I could help you! I actually don't plan on making such a video in the near future, but I've made a video about my colour grading process in the past: ruclips.net/video/JnQ2cJluNcI/видео.html You can apply the same techniques, just much less intense, because the GX80 footage isn't recorded in a strong colour profile. Nevertheless you can get a lot out of it!💪🏼 P.S. your music is amazing - the detailed sound design is just so pleasing in the ears!🙏🏼
MFT for 2019? Definitly Yes! I just bought the EM-1 mark ii with the holy f2.8 trinity (7-14; 14-40; 40-150). For above but also underwater! DItched the Nikon D7000 inclusing all glass.
I don't understand why people buy such overpriced gear. Those lenses are f/5.6 full frame equivalents, yet they're being sold with a 'pro' label and price tag.
I am using Panasonic m4/3 system, but I hate Panasonic always roll our new camera with functions cut away because of so call market segmentation. For example, only a few Panasonic camera got fully articulating screen or selfie flip screen, even the most popular one does not have one. It seems that always afraid of given all everything the customer will kill their high end product sales (highest profit margin) figures, but when you look at Sony, they will try to put everything they have into their new cameras, RX-100 series is a very good example. Also, please keep your m4/3 lens low in price, because they should not cost high. Remember, it is a smaller system. Don't tell me this is their advantage to being small and can sell as expensive as Full Frame or APSC systems lens.
With the present technique, the quality difference between crop and full-frame sensors is neglectable in almost all cases. So other factors (the ones you mentioned) should become the main issue, not the (marketed) quality.
I used to shoot with micro 4/3 than moved to full frame. Now I mainly shoot with an APS-C, kinda the best of both worlds. By the way, I like your hair.
I love traveling. The GX80 is great in size and weight. Especially when you pit it into hand luggage. On then other hand, I had the EOS 5D MII before, and the camera was great, but carrying it around was a pain. The photos I take are less art, more for memories and a blog... so the gx80 is perfect. The 12-60 is a great lens and I have the 17,5 mm as an add-on/walking around lens. Love it. But the battery drains fast...
I completely agree with your assessment. I have the G7, which has the same sensor as your GX80 and my only complaint is this sensor is getting old. The dynamic range sucks. I don't mind the low light capabilities of the M43, I shoot mainly landscape, and never find myself trying to shoot in the dark. But recently I've rented a Fuji X-T3 and I was blown away with the difference in dynamic range between my G7 and the Fuji. To me, the ability to be able to expose correctly shady area and sunny area is very important. With the G7 when I'm outside, it's a pain, there is always a part of the picture that is lost. I would consider the G9 or the GH5 if the new 20MB is better, but I'm not sure. I think I'll switch to Fuji. I have no desire to carry a full frame cam in my travels.
If you mainly shoot landscape you'd be much better served by using full frame gear. MFT isn't just noisier in the high ISO range, but especially at base ISO. Think of it this way: Your current camera only goes down to ISO 200. That ISO 200 looks the same as ISO 800 looks on a full frame camera (four times the sensor area causes two stops cleaner images at any given ISO). Now, many full frame models go down to ISO 64, but at the very least they do ISO 100. That ISO 100 is three stops down from 800. In other words, at the respective base ISO, you'd get three to four stops cleaner images on full frame than you do on MFT. That difference is huge in primary colors like blue skies and raised shadows. Rent a full frame camera and shoot it side by side with your MFT gear. You'll be astonished how far superior the full frame results will be. Doesn't have to be large and heavy either. The new mirrorless full frame options are light and compact, especially paired with f/4 glass (which is still as fast as f/2 on MFT and f/2.8 on aps-c), and better value for money than crop sensor solutions.
@@PhilippeOrlando How is it a pain? I got back from four weeks of traveling just yesterday. Had my D850 and six lenses. All of that fits into a small, carry-on backpack, which still had room for snacks, water and a jacket. I don't see what the big problem is supposed to be with full frame and travel. Even if you prefer to travel lighter, there's not that big a difference between the different sensor formats anymore. A Sony full frame body is only about 100g heavier than an X-T3 and pretty much the same size. If you went for, say, a used a7r II kit with the 24-105 f/4 you'd get everything you need for travel photography in a tiny package. And the results for landscape work would be much, much better than on any crop sensor system. Sidenote: It'll be years until an X-T4 comes along, but a possible X-H2 might be on the horizon, that'll have IBIS. I don't think IBIS is a big deal for landscape shooting though. You'll need a tripod anyway. I mean, nobody shoots landscapes hand held, IBIS or not.
and now in 2023? what micro 4/3 is worth it really? now talking about making cinema videos and not simple digital videos... what camera house to look into? thanks
Perhaps it's worth noting that for a given depth of field m43 cameras operate at two stops numerically smaller aperture and ISO than a full frame camera - in practice the "low light" performance is not that different when depth of field is a limiting consideration, as it frequently is.
Another way of looking at it is if a M43 lens had the same physical size as an equivalent full frame lens, it would enjoy roughly the same overall performance. Full frame cameras and lenses are increasingly sold on their ability to provide "bokeh". Ignoring the fact that M43 lenses of sufficiently wide aperture also produce bokeh (which is an appraisal of quality, not just size of out of focus artefacts), it suggests everyone shoots those kinds of images. If depth of field for available aperture is a prerequisite, M43 outperforms all other popular formats. Photography is a medium of compromises. What a professional sports photographer is prepared to carry to shoot a distant Olympic sport (a lens several feet long with a front element the size of a dinner plate) might not appeal to the general user as a carry round optic.
@@borderlands6606 Indeed. If people spent more time worrying about the area of the hole on the front of their camera, rather than the theoretical construct of "f-stop" they would get in less of a muddle about which cameras have the shallowest depth of field or best light gathering ability. Sensor size isn't that important for such things. Large sensors are better at coping with high light levels - and hence have larger dynamic range in some cases. Smaller sensors tend to have faster readout speeds - better for high frame rates in photography and video.
That's plain wrong. First of all, many full frames offer more than twice the resolution that MFT brings to the table, so there's a huge advantage in detail and cropability. Second, it's always possible to stop down on full frame for more depth of field, but physically impossible for MFT to get the thin dof a full frame 105 f/1.4 offers. The required 52.5 f/0.7 lens simply doesn't exist. As it stands, full frame gear can do every job that MFT gear can, but not vice versa. That's not to say that every shot has to have razor thin depth of field. It simply means full frame brings the option while MFT doesn't. Most professionals like that added creative flexibility and dislike being creatively hamstrung by the limitations of crop sensor formats. And it's not just that, it's also practicality. When I travel, I can just take a 24-70 f/2.8 and have all common focal lengths with a reasonable amount of subject isolation in a handy package. An MFT shooter either takes a zoom and gets no subject isolation, or has to pack a bunch of f/1.4 primes that'll cost a lot more than my zoom.
@UCo5dKEPjMc7VaUsZvcFSkSA Full frame cannot do every job m43 can do - crop frame sensors have faster readout speeds. That's why they dominate professional video applications, for example. My m43 system covers 16-400 mm ff equivalent focal range, has decent close-up capability, video capability and image stabilisation for photo and video applications. It can record 60 fps without cropping. I weighs a few kg - so that when I add food, clothing, water and other supplies it still weighs less than 10 kg, that means that I can carry it around with me for almost all the time - I get pictures that a full frame camera left at home would not get.
@@Stephen.Bingham Another reason photojournalists and sports photographers use full frame, is photo editors crop heavily, often using a fraction of the frame. This was the case decades after 35mm film cameras had been proven up to the task, with some picture editors insisting on hand held large format cameras because they didn't trust their photographers to get the money shot. A 5 x 4 camera with flash could be pointed in the general direction of the subject, and a print made from a tiny part of the negative. This practice went on well into the 1960s. Four decades later magazines still insisted on medium format slides for editorial work. This wasn't for image quality - Nat Geo managed fine with 35mm chromes - it was because picture editors wanted to hold a slide up to window light from their desk to save them walking to a light box and viewing through a loup! Such conservatism (or small-mindedness) is alive and well in the RUclips commentariat.
FF doesn't need as much IBIS because you don't need to shoot at 1/2" in the dark on max ISO just to get a semi-unusable shots. Simple as that. And throw whole bokeh for portraits completely out.
MFT is alive and well - did you know that a new Leica 25mm f1.4 version 2 weather sealed lens with new focus motor was released but the 10-25mm f1.7 took the limelight overshadowing the 25mm version 2 release (should see vast improvements to AF with this lens)- the 10-25mm is a significant investment by Panasonic which has received strong reviews The new 25mm f1.4 v 2 is a big step forward
I used lumix oly and now fuji... The problem with size and quality is... That a fuji 35 f2 is as good if not better than the lumix 25 1.4 and even smaller.
@@teocrawford I don't know why people shoot MFT when they are excited by fast glass. A 25mm f/1.4 on MFT gets you results equivalent to what a 50mm f/2.8 on full frame does. You can get a 50 f/1.8 for 100 bucks in the Canon world. If you want the benefits of fast primes like low light performance and subject isolation, why don't you just shoot full frame and save a ton of money?
The only thing that kept me out of M4/3 was the CDAF, but now they are getting PDAF also, and then the incredible price of the lenses. So I settled at aps-c, because I really didn't want to go back to full frame. It's such a nonsense hype train of poor battery life and high prices.
@@craig_m_mi You can pick up a used D800E for cheaper, yes. That's got nearly twice the resolution, two stops better noise performance, two stops better subject isolation and significantly more dynamic range. And yes, I am comparing new with used, because a used full frame still takes better pictures than a new MFT camera. Comparing new with new is nonsense, since the quality gap their is so huge that is akin to comparing a car with a bicycle.
@@ianmeredith7969 I actually can, because the D800E is built like a tank. It's built quality is worlds superior to any Olympus, therefore it makes sense to buy it used, whereas it does not for an E-M1 II. Besides, no MFT camera can hold a candle to the image quality of said D800E, used or new.
I’m sure others have said this already, but: the APSC cameras from Sony are barely larger, offer more features and better IQ, and once I switched over from Panasonic and Olympus to Sony, I was amazed at how my video/photography game instantly improved with equipment in the same price range.
I'd actually disagree about the price. If comparing compatible apertures, focus lengths, and positioning in the product stack, price differences aren't that dramatic. An Olympus M5iii + Olympus 25mm 1.2 (fastest AF standard lens I could find) will set you back $2,500 --- about the same as an A7iii+ Zeiss 55mm 1.8 will be.
MFT shooter mulling a switch to Fuji here. Have you tried loading the cinelike-d profile onto your GX80? Some of your intro clips look like they would have benefited from more dynamic range. As someone who likes cheap, fast primes, I don't see a long term future in the system for me. The f1.8/2 lenses are generally sharp and a good value, but they aren't fast enough for me (around f4 equivalent). Anything faster is way too expensive. I'm just barely getting away with the low-light shooting I do so frequently. Once the sigma contemporary primes are available for Fuji (or if the viltrox 1.4 ones are any good), I'll likely pick them up and an x-pro body. That same GX85 has taught me that I like a camera with a top-mounted shutter (for pressing with the thumb), and a side-mounted viewfinder. I'd love for something like that to exist on FF, it would let me use vintage glass properly. What would keep me in? A price cut on the panasonic 12mm, and a newly designed 1.2/1.4 17mm, 20mm, or 25mm. The olympus pro line is too expensive. A GH series camera that uses the GH5s sensor, but with IBIS. Failing that, sensor performance that's 1-1.5 stops better. In any case, I'm glad that MFT lets me shoot with a full kit of primes, two bodies, and an adapted 50-200 at a manageable cost. I'll be hanging on to the stuff for around 3 years, while I wait for IBIS in the X-pro line (or a mirrorless DF :) ) IBIS is really the saving grace for the system. It makes this sensor size viable for stills, and makes for more usable handheld video. Overall, I think MFT is a great system if you're ok with trading size for light gathering. Great for casuals, some pros seem to like it too. The FF mirrorless systems look promising, and will drive down the price of FF SLRs for those who want them. The Fuji system is almost there, they just need to update the AF motors on the 1.4 primes. Edit: The MFT cameras don't get enough credit for their single point autofocus. Most camera and lens combinations focus almost instantly. The continuous is only good on the higher end bodies, but the single af is so good that it has replaced zone focus for me, even when shooting from the hip. Not every hybrid autofocus system can match it. Canon's Nano USM lenses are the only ones that I've seen allow anything comparable.
Hang on TC. Your floppy hair was in a side parting at the start and then only a few seconds in it's in middle parting and swept back...but still floppy. At 2:38 your hair is brushed and under control again? 3:57...I just cannot keep up with the continuous continuity issues with your floppy hair.
Only if Panny release a GM6 or Olym releases a E-PM3. Something at least 20Mp that's below 250g, or IBIB Abe below 300g. The current bodies are about as heavy as APS-C cameras.
wouldn't use anything else anymore , theres too much crap about sensor size ,it means nothing in reality unless you want 10ft prints and who does???? , it doesn't make your pictures any better ,thats up to the photographer
Yes, full frame does make your pictures look better. Specifically it provides much better technical image quality than MFT by virtue of having significantly less noise, more subject isolation, higher resolution and better dynamic range. Those things matter, and not just in large prints. Even at fairly small sizes like A2 the difference is very obvious.
I have had an entry-level Canon t5 for years and switched to the Lumix GX85 recently and the learning curve on this is massive, it is extremely not user-friendly at first. I feel the autofocus takes way too long in the Lumix even simple autofocus. The shutter might just be set wrong but it too seems very slow to react to the touch of the button, in my T5 I could press it down and it instantly clicks, the Lumix seems to take 3 seconds after you touch it to click for the shot. I feel I have more to learn on the Lumix and get more practice on it but I do not think my next one will be another Panasonic model but back to Canon which to me is way better. I think if I could trade my Lumix gx85 with the 2 lenses for a Canon M50 with 2 lenses I would do it easily.
Well here's the FACTS,instead of just opinions and discussions.Now ,much of the time,what people use,they promote,and sometimes they express their preferences,with a negative slant towards something else.Now,if we live in the world and mindset of intellect,we will comprehend that whatever YOU use as an individual,is the exact right thing,or you would use something else.Anyone can do a wedding with JUST 4/3,or they can use something else,and still get professional results.NOw if your client nEEDS something special or you do,then there are certain things 4/3 is not that great at.If you NEED a small rig,then you might want to avoid a big bulky DSLR like mine. I do street shooting and the ONLY times i have been approached about a camera was in a mall,with my APS-C camera and once inside with my cinderblock that shoot pictures.That was security being incompetent,having stupid discussions with me about 'no taking pictures in here',while i know there will be 300+ people taking pictures with their Tablets/cellphones.Next,i am a grown man,who stayed fir and healthy over the years,so I never,ever,since film days,had an issue with carrying around less than 10 lbs.I mean,if i was so weak and fragile that i could lug around 10 lbs i would take up knitting instead.Walk around NYC and you see TONS of folks walking around with DSLRs with the kit strap,which typically is like the poor choice for comfort.I mean really,men and women hike with 70+ lbs up mountains,hanging off cliffs,and they obviously take that typical Canon FF camera with them. I typically head out with laptop,camera,and my skates,and even another bag,so I would venture to say if that's such as issue,that's just due to preference,and that's fine.I am in the streets of NYC and typically,it's DSLRs,those revered Fuji shooters,some Lumix shooters,and the casual APS-C/ff DSLR kit crew.Now here's where it gets weird..I shot all three of those formats,and i love the OPTION of full frame or shooting cropped,without losing any advantage because of the camera itself.My DSLR has IBIS which is NOT inferior to any 4/3 camera,so i have no idea where that notion comes from.In fact,many shooters love larger bodies because they can brace and support the camera,with less shake when the shutter is depressed.I didnt even use my IBIS for over 6 months,so that's a matter of someone's shooting skills. That means I can shoot at night,day,and in between,and since size/weight is a non issue, the format really does not matter.I heard something about people wanting 4/3 more,yet that's NOT what the sales,the numbers,nor the market says.I will check but i am sure the 4/3 market is kind of like the medium format market when it comes to usage/sales.DSLRs are what is used by professionals,and I would love to see some proof of some WBA/NFL/NBA,etc,shot with 4/3.I mean,if that's the best choice or the preferred one,then it would be used by professional sports/wildlife shooters.They would be happy to have something small,light,and convenient and be using that instead.So when it comes to 4/3 ,it's ONLY a question of personal preference or workflow.
Meanwhile the quality gap between full frame and MFT is continuously widening, MFT sales are shrinking faster than every other sensor format, Panasonic has moved on to full frame and its been leaked that Olympus is shutting down their consumer camera business next year.
@@burgulize Doesn't matter why MFT is dead, does it? If you want to get into the reasons though, it's obviously because of both. Phones are coming close to MFT in image quality while being much more convenient. Full frame is worlds ahead in quality but barely larger or heavier anymore. This means the niche MFT sits in is shrinking from both ends.
@@youknowwho9247 exactly, MFT only advantage was being able to do more in videos while keeping the body small but now FF are getting smaller and pretty much improved what MFT has been lacking in their video. Plus you got the crop sensor from Fujifilm who is so close to FF but with a cheaper body price that totally compares with the MFT prices, so i really dont know where MFT fits anymore, they will die sooner or later
Thank you! No, not all, I also often use the 20mm f/1.7👌 I just shoot in the Standard Picture Profile with Contrast set to the lowest setting. And when I shoot in 25fps I tend to use 4k for the cleaner image👍
FF being better, in overall general terms, is simply not correct. FF cameras, as a generalisation, both weigh a significant amount more, cost more and their glass is in no real way superior to MFT. Agree that for long zooms, birds and sports FF DSLRS and even the fanboy Sonys have some benefits.
couldnt agree more!I got the Oly 5mkii and the new 5mkiii is a bit of a downgrade!my photo pusher doesnt sell Panasonic so I will get the Oly 1mkii next year!
☼ Hang on; are you SERIOUS about all this camera biz? o_0/ H*ly sh*t. I was under the impression this was a character!! I use to think "WHOA! This guy is fully method, hey?". Now idk what to think.
this video should be captioned "i cant afford Sony so im going to try hard to rationalize my purchase" ...with the same budget i would rather get a Sony a6400 or Fujifilm XT30, that answers your size problem
No, in an environment where mirrorless aps-c and full frame cameras aren't much smaller and lighter anymore, MFT is pointless. Should be a pretty short video.
@@andreika6681 Full frame is much better value for money than MFT. At the same performance, MFT glass is like twice as expensive as full frame glass. The 10-25 f/1.7 for example brings the results of a 20-50 f/3.5 on full frame. On other words it's about as good as a full frame kit lens, but with less zoom range. And it costs a lot more.
@@youknowwho9247 you reason as a photog with 3 or more yrs of experience or a money making pro. during the first 3-5 yrs an amateur will have more than enough room to reach m43 limits with $100-300 lenses, and at least 1/2 of ppl who buy gear are not that rich and don't make any $$, they count every 100 bucks and also they just don't need the top IQ you talk about which only max 5-10% of their public would ever see - i think only 5% of photos end up printed, 10% are viewed on bigger computer screens, and now 90% end up being seen for 2 secs on 5" phone screen, mft is more than enough for 90% common mortals. anyway, whatever you or me say, mft are being manufactured and sold in hundreds of thousands, saying they are pointless is plain ridiculous, market proves the opposite
@@andreika6681 The people who you are describing would be wasting money on any camera. They should just shoot with their phones, or get a cheap point and shoot. MFT is a pointless system because its image quality isn't better than a point and shoot camera, and there are no noticeable weight or size savings compared to aps-c. Not only that, but MFT is actually more expensive than aps-c a lot of the time. That's literally more money for worse results. It's a format that made sense when the sensor itself was the prime cost driver in a camera. That's just not the case anymore. In this day and age, small sensor formats are obsolete thanks to smartphones. That's why MFT sales numbers are plummeting so quickly.
@@youknowwho9247 i'm one of those ppl, pal, and i'd have to pay for a $1000 phone to get better results than my $450 valued g80 + 12-60 can deliver. and i don't need to go for $2-4k FF level just for the pleasure of my ego, i'm not as vain as you're :-)
Try talking to people like humans, and then people might consider that you have a valuable opinion. Until then: Shut up Paul, you irrelevantly old bellend. Put it on mute, and use the closed captions if you have to.
I have a 40" x 30" print on my living room wall, which was shot raw with a GX80, and processed in lightroom. It looks absolutely stunning, even under close inspection. MFT is definitely still very much 'all systems go' in 2019, and the weight difference is amazing. I carried the GX80 plus three lenses around europe this summer, whilst pushing my disabled wife in her wheelchair, barely noticing I was carrying them.
i guess I'm kinda randomly asking but does anyone know of a good website to stream newly released series online ?
@Merrick Thomas thank you, I signed up and it seems like they got a lot of movies there :) Appreciate it !!
@Kyng Gregory happy to help =)
are you sure it isn't 40cm x 30cm? 40 inches is huge.
@@emmemmemm2360 it IS huge, and yes, it IS definitely 40 inches by 30 inches
I sold off my Canon FF system because as an old man it was getting far to heavy. I invested in a Lumix system based around the G80 and I love it. Light, great features and perfect for my needs.
Oh yes Panasonic really nails it when it comes to portability💪
I'm glad you found the right fit for your needs :)
Your intro sequence was fantastic....subscribed just for more of that!
Oohh yessss welcome to the team!🙌🙌
Well done. As a full frame professional photographer (Nikon Z6 & other Nikon FF Bodies) here in the States I use my GX85 as a secondary, street & on the go camera. Its perfect and I do it for all the reasons you provide. Great stuff btw. I enjoy your videos and grading style.
Two years ago I dropped my phone, into a marble floor, needless to say it broke beyond repair. As a photographer I began thinking about buying a high-end cameraphone. But while browsing through the internet and reading reviews about fake bokeh etc. I realized that for less money I could actually buy a small second hand system camera... And a real camera will always beat a phone (imo).
I ended up buying a cheap phone and a used Panasonic GX7, small enough to fit in my regular bag, meaning that I could always have it with me. Have hardly used my dslr since. It's difficult to explain but the GX7 has so much character, it doesn't feel as if i'm using a lifeless instrument but rather an artist's brush. And paired with manual lenses shooting feels rather like painting, as if I am truly capturing the world around me as I myself interperets it.
It's a lovely system and I appreciate Panasonic and Olympus for being brave enough to design vintage inspired cameras with lots of character. The only downside for me is the cropfactor, this can make it hard to find wide lenses and makes it difficult to use legacy lenses. Also the diffraction caused by the small sensor above F11. Both a Pro and Con is the large DoF, this makes the camera good for landscape and environmental shots but can make it difficult to get short depth of field / nice bokeh.
But all in all... Hell yeah. Get yourself a M4/3 camera if you want something fun to shoot with!
I recently bought a second GX7 :)
@Mr Tech Haha yes... I also think that is a major problem these days. Lenses have become way to expensive.
I think its awesome that Full Frame is getting more affordable these days. So no problems with that. I think the biggest problem is that all these youtubers make people nuts about FF because of the shallower depth of field and better low light. But, it’s all about making photos: mft is an awesome platform... Often I’m at an event where people have big canons, sonys, nikons etc. When they see my silver GX8 with brown leather case, I always get a lot of compliments! And the photo’s are great as well.
If MFT is dead, Panasonic Leica 10-25mm wouldnt came out this year. Cant wait for new type of lenses for the platform!
It is now 2023 and your video just popped up in my timeline. I've yet to watch it but I wanted to answer the question, four years on: still yes.
I havethe gx80and love it. Traveling is so much easier and the handluggage is not filled with just a camera. got the Leica 12-60, the 17.5 mm and got the 45 mm 75 % off at a bancrupsy sale. Great setup. Had the EOS 5D MII before and remember a heavyHongkong trip with 2 lenses...
I have just in recent month invested in MFT after a thorough research. Yes, you touched all my points. I have a GH5 and a GM1. Subscribed!
I am a Lumix gx8 user and I love micro fourth third sensor small compact and he it was the reason why a re enjoy taking pictures with a camera. I do half of my work un low ligh or night photography and if I don't say that it was made with a micro fourth third sensor you will never find out!
I have both and the FF sits on the shelf most of the times. For street photography you cannot beat M43. Light, discreet and with more Dof. In normal light there is no difference in IQ in my opinion, even when printing fairly large. When you get a little older it becomes a drag to lug heavy bodies and even heavier lenses.
For street or travel photography, I actually prefer a much smaller camera like my Oly TG4 which I can shoot most of the time without being notice. Surprisingly, I can still print up to A3 size. With a very small camera like a TG4, very few people bother with what you shoot and that is a very good thing. It is the result that matters. I can have a collection of photos even a bigger, more expensive camera can't achieve.
One of the main advantage of using the TG4 is that it is completely waterproof. Thus, I can shoot in any weather anywhere. I can also shoot with one hand while holding the umbrella in the other when it is freezing cold, windy and raining, not on some mountain but just walking the streets in Vienna, Austria. Try doing this with a DSLR or a full frame mirrorless camera.
This depends on the ISO you are using. Beyond ISO 800, MFT is falling apart. I know all the Fanboys here don’t want to hear that but it’s a fact. I typically take my Wildlife pictures early morning or evening when the light is poor. Sorry to say, MFT is a better noise generator in such moments whereas a Full Frame in the 24MP range still delivers.
@@Stefan1968ful lets see examples of your wildlife images.
@@helio-c2525 Oh how poor is such a comment. You don't want to get facts, you just one of these rubbish M43 Fanboys. Do you really believe by ignoring the fact the physics will change? Get a real life, dude.
@@Stefan1968ful so you don't have any photographic credentials do you? Physics says MFT has plenty of resolving power and light gathering power for most photographers at half the price and weight. If you debate that then back it up, start with your own photography. Convince me. You must be an extremely insecure person to spend so much time trolling MFT forums.
I love my GX85 camera and use this as my lightweight travel setup.
You forgot to mention the main benefits of full frame -these would have to be better dynamic range,better low light performance and consequently the possibility for faster shutter speeds for given light making them much better for action.
I think the MFT is one of the most underrated systems out there. I currently have the Sony A7R II and Olympus E-M10 II and can see the advantages of both. When I go hiking in the hills and mountains I usually take my E-M10 II for the weight saving most of the time. The E-M10 II is definitely a better looking camera and wants me to pick it up more than my Sony, but as you mentioned full frame has different advantages.
For someone who does Shooting at Agricultural shows. M43 it's excellent I really really get worn out lugging huge glass with me, and Olympus is just great.
Watched several of your videos and it helps a lot. Thanks for all the quality content you share with us. Will follow closely your further videos :)
Sweet! Glad to read I'm able to help :)
Great video, I appreciated the insight. I currently have a Nikon D5300 and I’m getting a Yi M1. I have no intentions of going full frame, I do however intend to ditch DSLR and go to Mirrorless.
Your presentation skills are first rate. Thank you for a very informative video. Looking forward to the next.
Thank you! - more are coming :)
people will say m43 isn't so good because of the sensor, but i've ran into a lot of people shooting the bmpcc 4k on sets..
Of course it still makes sense, and how. The balanced way is the couple: micro 4/3 together with the FF. The APCS-C pair together with the FF no longer makes any sense (apart from brands that only use APS-C).
When you rewatch the intro after it says it was shot with the GX80: Nice.
Im APS-C tho. Fuji X-T3.
thanks man, ohh nice one! :)
i don't get the gripe about shallow depth of field i can get crazy shallow dof with my 20mm 1.7, i own an old panasonic gf2, canon 5d3 and 7d, i almost always for the m43. it's so sharp! and the images just look good all the time! i really want that gx85 tho!
A 20mm f/1.7 on MFT produces images similar to what a 40mm f/3.5 does on full frame. It does not deliver 'crazy shallow dof, but has about the same capabilities in subject isolation as a full frame kit lens.
Well said, but when you get in close to subject with the 20mm the bokeh is just beautiful!
@@MrAddison79 That's beside my point. No matter how shallow the dof on that MFT lens is, it won't match what full frame can deliver. So what you call 'crazy shallow' is actually very mediocre by comparison. I mean, f/3.5 isn't fast by any means for a full frame shooter. Imagine you could open up your 20mm two stops further to f/0.9 - that's the depth of field you'd get with a 40mm f/1.8 on full frame.
Not that you'd always need or want that, but it enables you to get good subject isolation at much greater subject distance when the situation calls for it. Shallow depth of field isn't an end in itself, it's an ability of full frame gear that grants more creative freedom and choice to the photographer.
good to know thanks
Still best camera ever. 4/3. 2020.
The GX80/85 with the Panasonic 20mm/1.7 (II) pancake prime is also my main setup to carry around with me. Occasionally, I'll bring along the kit 12-32 kit pancake zoom in a pocket and switch off as needed. It produces great results, but, as you mention, there are limitations. It's like the difference between cooking with a microwave oven vs. a full gas range. One will do some jobs better than the other, and one will be much cheaper than the other. It really come down to how you intend to use them.
Exactly! Really like the analogy😂👏👏
I'm glad that 20mm works for you. I really hope they update the autofocus motor on it, excellent lens otherwise.
The analogy is flawed, because full frame can do every job MFT can, but not vice versa, and because full frame is more cost efficient.
@@youknowwho9247
Nope, it does not. Ibis is garbage on most of the full frame cameras. Wtf are you talking about. You can't vlog with any full frame unless you have gimbal which makes twice as heavy.
I’m on APS-C (Fuji) but the Panasonic 12-60/2.8-4 at around 300g is so tempting as a travel lens.
Love your work, Teo. For low-light, I reach for my speedbooster + Sigma 18-35.
Thank you! :)) Ohh yeah that combo is so dope! :P
You could just put that lens on a native APS-C body and get better results for less money.
@@youknowwho9247 Not a bad idea, but which APSc is cheaper than an M43?
@@OpenFilmmaker Well, an E-M1X costs 2500 bucks, so all of them. Unless you are looking for specific comparisons, which would make the question more manageable. Generally speaking though I'd say APS-C and MFT bodies cost about the same for comparable feature sets.
@@youknowwho9247 The GX85 with two lenses is $450. The G9 is under $1k. I have a video comparing the G85 to latest Sony a6100. The Sony lacks IBIS and costs more. Maybe you're looking at the high-end M43 and low-end APSc? But I agree with you that an APSc lens looks better on an APSc body. No need for the adapters.
One advantage which is related to size is especially prevalent in sports photography. Many stadia i.e. San Jose, CA's SAP Center restrict the length of lenses allowed in the stadium to 6" or shorter. For a full frame or APS-C that would exclude almost all telephoto lenses whereas for a m4/3 camera most lenses would be short enough. That would mean that if you wanted good shots with a full frame or APS-C camera, you would need to shell out big bucks for good seats whereas with a m4/3 camera, you can get away with getting cheaper seats and using a super telephoto lens like I did with my Olympus 75-300mm lens.
I sold my Z6 and now have this exact combo of GX80 and the 14-140. Well, I have 3 other lenses too, but my point is, it's clear where I stand on the subject :)
wow, some people just barely began to dream about Z6! Not me, though - I am a happy user of GX85 with 9 matching lenses
Yeah, I was one of them dreamers, that's why I bought it :) But all you need to do is to go check in a camera store how big are the good lenses. The ones that are f/2.8 and faster. I realized it's very inconvenient to carry them around. And wherever you take a huge camera like that from your bag, all heads turn in your direction. Trust me, don't bother. Unless you are a professional photographer/videographer and you NEED a full frame for making money, the smaller options are preferable.
@@momchilyordanov8190 You could just get f/4 full frame glass instead. That still provides one stop better results than f/2.8 mft lenses.
The consumer grade lenses for FF are indeed smaller, but not very good. The pictures coming out them are simply somewhat flat and unimpressive. I see no point of buying lower quality lenses for my FF camera, just in the name of full frame. The reality is, good glass for FF is huge. There is just no way around it. Now, when I was shooting a 70-200 f/2.8 on the Z6, the pictures were gorgeous. Rich colors, more contrast, sharp, simply gorgeous. But the lens alone was bigger and heavier than my current camera and the 3 lenses for it. I tell this to anyone, who is lusting a FF system. They are the best in terms of IQ, but a) the size is huge and b) the price is high. I'm lucky to have b) under control somewhat, but the a) was a constant bugger. And if your gear is not "urging" you to pick it up and use it, what's the point of keeping thousands of $$$ in it?
@@momchilyordanov8190 You're missing the point. The cheapest, lightest full frame glass still outperforms the heaviest, most expensive MFT glass. That's because physics can't be cheated. Lenses that deliver the same results will have about the same size and weight across all different sensor formats. The difference is that in the full frame world, an f/5.6 lens is considered consumer grade and priced accordingly, whereas the corresponding f/2.8 lens in the MFT world is called pro and will cost a lot more. If one does the math correctly it becomes apparent very quickly that full frame is actually a lot better bang for one's buck than MFT.
If you love M43, check out the Pentax Q system.
Teo awesome stuff my man. Question, what were your picture profile settings in camera? I have the GX80 (GX85 here in the states for us Yanks lol) and I like how you were able to pull a decent amount of dynamic range out of it
Yoo thank you :)) I just shot in the Std Profile with contrast set to the lowest setting. Most of the dynamic range comes out in grading :)
Of course micro 4/3 surely worth buying in 2019 and for ever. Horses for courses. Each format has his pro's en con's.
I have fullframe, aps-c and mft cameras (gh5, g9 and gx80). In the real world mft (not scientific comparing with numbers) is not crippled. Buy fast lenses (I own Vogtlander f 0.95 25 mm, f 1.7 15 mm. f 1.7 20 mm. With fast lensen and max iso800 I can handdle all light situations. What is also nice with mft? This gear is light and can be for pro photographers a reason to choose for mft. 3 bodies, many lenses in one bag, yes it can and you can travel light. If you cannot get great pictures with mft camera's such as Panasonic G9 and Olympus EM mark II you also will not succeed with a fullframe camera.
hey man, wow! honestly I was shocked when I listened to my track 'Distance' in this video! you were the reason I switched from my really old Canon Rebel T5 to the Panasonic Lumix GX80 and it's really good surprise haha thank you! would be amazing if you upload a video on how you color grade on that camera, I would appreciate it deeply!
Ohh wow, how cool's that!? Never would have thought you would watch one of my videos haha🙌🏼🙌🏼
Ohh that's great, happy to read I could help you! I actually don't plan on making such a video in the near future, but I've made a video about my colour grading process in the past: ruclips.net/video/JnQ2cJluNcI/видео.html
You can apply the same techniques, just much less intense, because the GX80 footage isn't recorded in a strong colour profile. Nevertheless you can get a lot out of it!💪🏼
P.S. your music is amazing - the detailed sound design is just so pleasing in the ears!🙏🏼
MFT for 2019? Definitly Yes! I just bought the EM-1 mark ii with the holy f2.8 trinity (7-14; 14-40; 40-150). For above but also underwater! DItched the Nikon D7000 inclusing all glass.
Ohhh my that setup sounds sooo dope👌👌
That is top notch hands down.
I don't understand why people buy such overpriced gear. Those lenses are f/5.6 full frame equivalents, yet they're being sold with a 'pro' label and price tag.
@@youknowwho9247 M43 is something you love or hate, that's all why
@@oeaoo Camera gear isn't about emotions like love or hate, it's about facts and results.
I am using Panasonic m4/3 system, but I hate Panasonic always roll our new camera with functions cut away because of so call market segmentation. For example, only a few Panasonic camera got fully articulating screen or selfie flip screen, even the most popular one does not have one. It seems that always afraid of given all everything the customer will kill their high end product sales (highest profit margin) figures, but when you look at Sony, they will try to put everything they have into their new cameras, RX-100 series is a very good example. Also, please keep your m4/3 lens low in price, because they should not cost high. Remember, it is a smaller system. Don't tell me this is their advantage to being small and can sell as expensive as Full Frame or APSC systems lens.
If they continue to do this kind of stupid market segmentation, they will fail very soon.
With the present technique, the quality difference between crop and full-frame sensors is neglectable in almost all cases. So other factors (the ones you mentioned) should become the main issue, not the (marketed) quality.
Hello, Teo, Very informative video! Thank you so much. I agree with you totally.
Heeey Amy, great, I'm glad you found it useful! :)
I used to shoot with micro 4/3 than moved to full frame. Now I mainly shoot with an APS-C, kinda the best of both worlds. By the way, I like your hair.
nice! As usual the good old midground does the best :P Hahah thanks :))
I love traveling. The GX80 is great in size and weight. Especially when you pit it into hand luggage. On then other hand, I had the EOS 5D MII before, and the camera was great, but carrying it around was a pain. The photos I take are less art, more for memories and a blog... so the gx80 is perfect. The 12-60 is a great lens and I have the 17,5 mm as an add-on/walking around lens. Love it. But the battery drains fast...
I completely agree with your assessment. I have the G7, which has the same sensor as your GX80 and my only complaint is this sensor is getting old. The dynamic range sucks. I don't mind the low light capabilities of the M43, I shoot mainly landscape, and never find myself trying to shoot in the dark. But recently I've rented a Fuji X-T3 and I was blown away with the difference in dynamic range between my G7 and the Fuji. To me, the ability to be able to expose correctly shady area and sunny area is very important. With the G7 when I'm outside, it's a pain, there is always a part of the picture that is lost. I would consider the G9 or the GH5 if the new 20MB is better, but I'm not sure. I think I'll switch to Fuji. I have no desire to carry a full frame cam in my travels.
I assume you use RAW, because if not - before switching to Fuji, try it.
@@komandagleby_GB Yes, I show raw
If you mainly shoot landscape you'd be much better served by using full frame gear. MFT isn't just noisier in the high ISO range, but especially at base ISO. Think of it this way: Your current camera only goes down to ISO 200. That ISO 200 looks the same as ISO 800 looks on a full frame camera (four times the sensor area causes two stops cleaner images at any given ISO). Now, many full frame models go down to ISO 64, but at the very least they do ISO 100. That ISO 100 is three stops down from 800.
In other words, at the respective base ISO, you'd get three to four stops cleaner images on full frame than you do on MFT. That difference is huge in primary colors like blue skies and raised shadows.
Rent a full frame camera and shoot it side by side with your MFT gear. You'll be astonished how far superior the full frame results will be.
Doesn't have to be large and heavy either. The new mirrorless full frame options are light and compact, especially paired with f/4 glass (which is still as fast as f/2 on MFT and f/2.8 on aps-c), and better value for money than crop sensor solutions.
@@youknowwho9247 Travelling with full frame gear is a pain. I think I"ll check that Fuji X-T3 or maybe wait for an X-T4 with IBIS
@@PhilippeOrlando How is it a pain? I got back from four weeks of traveling just yesterday. Had my D850 and six lenses. All of that fits into a small, carry-on backpack, which still had room for snacks, water and a jacket. I don't see what the big problem is supposed to be with full frame and travel.
Even if you prefer to travel lighter, there's not that big a difference between the different sensor formats anymore. A Sony full frame body is only about 100g heavier than an X-T3 and pretty much the same size. If you went for, say, a used a7r II kit with the 24-105 f/4 you'd get everything you need for travel photography in a tiny package. And the results for landscape work would be much, much better than on any crop sensor system.
Sidenote: It'll be years until an X-T4 comes along, but a possible X-H2 might be on the horizon, that'll have IBIS. I don't think IBIS is a big deal for landscape shooting though. You'll need a tripod anyway. I mean, nobody shoots landscapes hand held, IBIS or not.
and now in 2023? what micro 4/3 is worth it really? now talking about making cinema videos and not simple digital videos... what camera house to look into? thanks
Perhaps it's worth noting that for a given depth of field m43 cameras operate at two stops numerically smaller aperture and ISO than a full frame camera - in practice the "low light" performance is not that different when depth of field is a limiting consideration, as it frequently is.
Another way of looking at it is if a M43 lens had the same physical size as an equivalent full frame lens, it would enjoy roughly the same overall performance. Full frame cameras and lenses are increasingly sold on their ability to provide "bokeh". Ignoring the fact that M43 lenses of sufficiently wide aperture also produce bokeh (which is an appraisal of quality, not just size of out of focus artefacts), it suggests everyone shoots those kinds of images. If depth of field for available aperture is a prerequisite, M43 outperforms all other popular formats.
Photography is a medium of compromises. What a professional sports photographer is prepared to carry to shoot a distant Olympic sport (a lens several feet long with a front element the size of a dinner plate) might not appeal to the general user as a carry round optic.
@@borderlands6606 Indeed. If people spent more time worrying about the area of the hole on the front of their camera, rather than the theoretical construct of "f-stop" they would get in less of a muddle about which cameras have the shallowest depth of field or best light gathering ability. Sensor size isn't that important for such things. Large sensors are better at coping with high light levels - and hence have larger dynamic range in some cases. Smaller sensors tend to have faster readout speeds - better for high frame rates in photography and video.
That's plain wrong. First of all, many full frames offer more than twice the resolution that MFT brings to the table, so there's a huge advantage in detail and cropability. Second, it's always possible to stop down on full frame for more depth of field, but physically impossible for MFT to get the thin dof a full frame 105 f/1.4 offers. The required 52.5 f/0.7 lens simply doesn't exist.
As it stands, full frame gear can do every job that MFT gear can, but not vice versa. That's not to say that every shot has to have razor thin depth of field. It simply means full frame brings the option while MFT doesn't. Most professionals like that added creative flexibility and dislike being creatively hamstrung by the limitations of crop sensor formats.
And it's not just that, it's also practicality. When I travel, I can just take a 24-70 f/2.8 and have all common focal lengths with a reasonable amount of subject isolation in a handy package. An MFT shooter either takes a zoom and gets no subject isolation, or has to pack a bunch of f/1.4 primes that'll cost a lot more than my zoom.
@UCo5dKEPjMc7VaUsZvcFSkSA Full frame cannot do every job m43 can do - crop frame sensors have faster readout speeds. That's why they dominate professional video applications, for example. My m43 system covers 16-400 mm ff equivalent focal range, has decent close-up capability, video capability and image stabilisation for photo and video applications. It can record 60 fps without cropping. I weighs a few kg - so that when I add food, clothing, water and other supplies it still weighs less than 10 kg, that means that I can carry it around with me for almost all the time - I get pictures that a full frame camera left at home would not get.
@@Stephen.Bingham Another reason photojournalists and sports photographers use full frame, is photo editors crop heavily, often using a fraction of the frame. This was the case decades after 35mm film cameras had been proven up to the task, with some picture editors insisting on hand held large format cameras because they didn't trust their photographers to get the money shot.
A 5 x 4 camera with flash could be pointed in the general direction of the subject, and a print made from a tiny part of the negative. This practice went on well into the 1960s. Four decades later magazines still insisted on medium format slides for editorial work. This wasn't for image quality - Nat Geo managed fine with 35mm chromes - it was because picture editors wanted to hold a slide up to window light from their desk to save them walking to a light box and viewing through a loup! Such conservatism (or small-mindedness) is alive and well in the RUclips commentariat.
FF doesn't need as much IBIS because you don't need to shoot at 1/2" in the dark on max ISO just to get a semi-unusable shots. Simple as that. And throw whole bokeh for portraits completely out.
MFT is alive and well - did you know that a new Leica 25mm f1.4 version 2 weather sealed lens with new focus motor was released but the 10-25mm f1.7 took the limelight overshadowing the 25mm version 2 release (should see vast improvements to AF with this lens)- the 10-25mm is a significant investment by Panasonic which has received strong reviews
The new 25mm f1.4 v 2 is a big step forward
Oh gosh a new 25mm f/1.4 sound gooood😍
I used lumix oly and now fuji... The problem with size and quality is... That a fuji 35 f2 is as good if not better than the lumix 25 1.4 and even smaller.
@@teocrawford I don't know why people shoot MFT when they are excited by fast glass. A 25mm f/1.4 on MFT gets you results equivalent to what a 50mm f/2.8 on full frame does. You can get a 50 f/1.8 for 100 bucks in the Canon world. If you want the benefits of fast primes like low light performance and subject isolation, why don't you just shoot full frame and save a ton of money?
The only thing that kept me out of M4/3 was the CDAF, but now they are getting PDAF also, and then the incredible price of the lenses. So I settled at aps-c, because I really didn't want to go back to full frame. It's such a nonsense hype train of poor battery life and high prices.
Nicely done video. I wish the 14-140 was weather sealed, then I would use it more.
Thanks Tim! :)
I'm not 100% sure but I think the 14-140mm is indeed weather sealed, isn't it? Mine has taken some drops, which seemed to be fine :o
If not, the Olympus 14-150 is weather sealed 😊 so many options with mft!
As well as the new 12-200, and the 12-100 pro.
12-45mm F4, 20mm F1.7, 10-25mm F1.7---MFT has a lot of high-quality lenses that Full Frame or APS-C can not compete with.
Not at the price Olympus are charging for the EM 5 mark III
There is a cheaper FF camera and lens combo that is current model? Or you comparing the latest here with a 3 or 4 year old one there?
@@craig_m_mi You can pick up a used D800E for cheaper, yes. That's got nearly twice the resolution, two stops better noise performance, two stops better subject isolation and significantly more dynamic range.
And yes, I am comparing new with used, because a used full frame still takes better pictures than a new MFT camera. Comparing new with new is nonsense, since the quality gap their is so huge that is akin to comparing a car with a bicycle.
@@ianmeredith7969 I actually can, because the D800E is built like a tank. It's built quality is worlds superior to any Olympus, therefore it makes sense to buy it used, whereas it does not for an E-M1 II.
Besides, no MFT camera can hold a candle to the image quality of said D800E, used or new.
I’m sure others have said this already, but: the APSC cameras from Sony are barely larger, offer more features and better IQ, and once I switched over from Panasonic and Olympus to Sony, I was amazed at how my video/photography game instantly improved with equipment in the same price range.
Yes APSC is the direct competition of m43 not full frame. I will go for APSC instead of m43 - Fuji or Sony.
More features??? Hmmm...
I'd actually disagree about the price. If comparing compatible apertures, focus lengths, and positioning in the product stack, price differences aren't that dramatic. An Olympus M5iii + Olympus 25mm 1.2 (fastest AF standard lens I could find) will set you back $2,500 --- about the same as an A7iii+ Zeiss 55mm 1.8 will be.
That said, I appreciate the largely anti-fanboy evaluation of both systems. Both have their pros and cons for sure.
You said double the size, it’s actually 4 times the size. 2x the crop.
Not sure about your filmmaking statement.... GH5 and BMPCC are m43 and filmmakers rave about those
MFT shooter mulling a switch to Fuji here. Have you tried loading the cinelike-d profile onto your GX80? Some of your intro clips look like they would have benefited from more dynamic range.
As someone who likes cheap, fast primes, I don't see a long term future in the system for me. The f1.8/2 lenses are generally sharp and a good value, but they aren't fast enough for me (around f4 equivalent). Anything faster is way too expensive. I'm just barely getting away with the low-light shooting I do so frequently. Once the sigma contemporary primes are available for Fuji (or if the viltrox 1.4 ones are any good), I'll likely pick them up and an x-pro body. That same GX85 has taught me that I like a camera with a top-mounted shutter (for pressing with the thumb), and a side-mounted viewfinder. I'd love for something like that to exist on FF, it would let me use vintage glass properly.
What would keep me in? A price cut on the panasonic 12mm, and a newly designed 1.2/1.4 17mm, 20mm, or 25mm. The olympus pro line is too expensive. A GH series camera that uses the GH5s sensor, but with IBIS. Failing that, sensor performance that's 1-1.5 stops better. In any case, I'm glad that MFT lets me shoot with a full kit of primes, two bodies, and an adapted 50-200 at a manageable cost. I'll be hanging on to the stuff for around 3 years, while I wait for IBIS in the X-pro line (or a mirrorless DF :) )
IBIS is really the saving grace for the system. It makes this sensor size viable for stills, and makes for more usable handheld video.
Overall, I think MFT is a great system if you're ok with trading size for light gathering. Great for casuals, some pros seem to like it too. The FF mirrorless systems look promising, and will drive down the price of FF SLRs for those who want them. The Fuji system is almost there, they just need to update the AF motors on the 1.4 primes.
Edit: The MFT cameras don't get enough credit for their single point autofocus. Most camera and lens combinations focus almost instantly. The continuous is only good on the higher end bodies, but the single af is so good that it has replaced zone focus for me, even when shooting from the hip. Not every hybrid autofocus system can match it. Canon's Nano USM lenses are the only ones that I've seen allow anything comparable.
Wow what a detailed comment - thanks for sharing :)
Yeah that's actually very true, my GX80 has fantastic AF for stills.
Hang on TC. Your floppy hair was in a side parting at the start and then only a few seconds in it's in middle parting and swept back...but still floppy. At 2:38 your hair is brushed and under control again? 3:57...I just cannot keep up with the continuous continuity issues with your floppy hair.
hahahah me neither dude, my hair is uncontrollable :,D
But he does have lovely hair though gotta admit that.
As for low light video? Dude, the Gh5s still destroys at low light video. HLG with the Leeming Lut is superb. Great vid though. You have a great eye.
Only if Panny release a GM6 or Olym releases a E-PM3. Something at least 20Mp that's below 250g, or IBIB Abe below 300g. The current bodies are about as heavy as APS-C cameras.
wouldn't use anything else anymore , theres too much crap about sensor size ,it means nothing in reality unless you want 10ft prints and who does???? , it doesn't make your pictures any better ,thats up to the photographer
Yes, full frame does make your pictures look better. Specifically it provides much better technical image quality than MFT by virtue of having significantly less noise, more subject isolation, higher resolution and better dynamic range. Those things matter, and not just in large prints. Even at fairly small sizes like A2 the difference is very obvious.
Perché no?
Very well explained, thanks !
Glad to hear that, you're welcome :))
You forgot that a 14-140 equivalent lense for sony would weigh more than a kilo alone, not to mention the enormous size of such a lense
Lovely opening footage. :-)
Could I get a flash setup for micro four thirds?
I have had an entry-level Canon t5 for years and switched to the Lumix GX85 recently and the learning curve on this is massive, it is extremely not user-friendly at first. I feel the autofocus takes way too long in the Lumix even simple autofocus. The shutter might just be set wrong but it too seems very slow to react to the touch of the button, in my T5 I could press it down and it instantly clicks, the Lumix seems to take 3 seconds after you touch it to click for the shot. I feel I have more to learn on the Lumix and get more practice on it but I do not think my next one will be another Panasonic model but back to Canon which to me is way better. I think if I could trade my Lumix gx85 with the 2 lenses for a Canon M50 with 2 lenses I would do it easily.
Well here's the FACTS,instead of just opinions and discussions.Now ,much of the time,what people use,they promote,and sometimes they express their preferences,with a negative slant towards something else.Now,if we live in the world and mindset of intellect,we will comprehend that whatever YOU use as an individual,is the exact right thing,or you would use something else.Anyone can do a wedding with JUST 4/3,or they can use something else,and still get professional results.NOw if your client nEEDS something special or you do,then there are certain things 4/3 is not that great at.If you NEED a small rig,then you might want to avoid a big bulky DSLR like mine.
I do street shooting and the ONLY times i have been approached about a camera was in a mall,with my APS-C camera and once inside with my cinderblock that shoot pictures.That was security being incompetent,having stupid discussions with me about 'no taking pictures in here',while i know there will be 300+ people taking pictures with their Tablets/cellphones.Next,i am a grown man,who stayed fir and healthy over the years,so I never,ever,since film days,had an issue with carrying around less than 10 lbs.I mean,if i was so weak and fragile that i could lug around 10 lbs i would take up knitting instead.Walk around NYC and you see TONS of folks walking around with DSLRs with the kit strap,which typically is like the poor choice for comfort.I mean really,men and women hike with 70+ lbs up mountains,hanging off cliffs,and they obviously take that typical Canon FF camera with them.
I typically head out with laptop,camera,and my skates,and even another bag,so I would venture to say if that's such as issue,that's just due to preference,and that's fine.I am in the streets of NYC and typically,it's DSLRs,those revered Fuji shooters,some Lumix shooters,and the casual APS-C/ff DSLR kit crew.Now here's where it gets weird..I shot all three of those formats,and i love the OPTION of full frame or shooting cropped,without losing any advantage because of the camera itself.My DSLR has IBIS which is NOT inferior to any 4/3 camera,so i have no idea where that notion comes from.In fact,many shooters love larger bodies because they can brace and support the camera,with less shake when the shutter is depressed.I didnt even use my IBIS for over 6 months,so that's a matter of someone's shooting skills.
That means I can shoot at night,day,and in between,and since size/weight is a non issue, the format really does not matter.I heard something about people wanting 4/3 more,yet that's NOT what the sales,the numbers,nor the market says.I will check but i am sure the 4/3 market is kind of like the medium format market when it comes to usage/sales.DSLRs are what is used by professionals,and I would love to see some proof of some WBA/NFL/NBA,etc,shot with 4/3.I mean,if that's the best choice or the preferred one,then it would be used by professional sports/wildlife shooters.They would be happy to have something small,light,and convenient and be using that instead.So when it comes to 4/3 ,it's ONLY a question of personal preference or workflow.
MFT are here to stay.
And eventually, to surpass FF in every aspect.
go home your drunk
Meanwhile the quality gap between full frame and MFT is continuously widening, MFT sales are shrinking faster than every other sensor format, Panasonic has moved on to full frame and its been leaked that Olympus is shutting down their consumer camera business next year.
@@youknowwho9247 That's because of phone camera advancement, not FF :)
@@burgulize Doesn't matter why MFT is dead, does it? If you want to get into the reasons though, it's obviously because of both. Phones are coming close to MFT in image quality while being much more convenient. Full frame is worlds ahead in quality but barely larger or heavier anymore. This means the niche MFT sits in is shrinking from both ends.
@@youknowwho9247 exactly, MFT only advantage was being able to do more in videos while keeping the body small but now FF are getting smaller and pretty much improved what MFT has been lacking in their video. Plus you got the crop sensor from Fujifilm who is so close to FF but with a cheaper body price that totally compares with the MFT prices, so i really dont know where MFT fits anymore, they will die sooner or later
Excellent Teo!. Is recording all whit 14-140 ? I want see your setup settings menu for video in gx80... Sorry for my english
Thank you! No, not all, I also often use the 20mm f/1.7👌
I just shoot in the Standard Picture Profile with Contrast set to the lowest setting. And when I shoot in 25fps I tend to use 4k for the cleaner image👍
FF being better, in overall general terms, is simply not correct. FF cameras, as a generalisation, both weigh a significant amount more, cost more and their glass is in no real way superior to MFT. Agree that for long zooms, birds and sports FF DSLRS and even the fanboy Sonys have some benefits.
Thanks for job. Good video
Yes.
And what about the workflow on your computer. The bigger the files the slower the workflow, compared on the same computer.
Bro, great video.
Thank you man!! :)
YES!
MFT is Great! And GH5 is King!
couldnt agree more!I got the Oly 5mkii and the new 5mkiii is a bit of a downgrade!my photo pusher doesnt sell Panasonic so I will get the Oly 1mkii next year!
I do not think that IBIS is something good. Because of constant moving of sensor, tiny flat cables around sensor, soon or later would be broken.
Talk with people that use IBIS cameras everyday, nothing wrong happens
Olympus has had IBIS in their cameras for years now and I have never heard of this happening.
What frame rate is this shot at?
Mostly 25fps👀
☼ Hang on; are you SERIOUS about all this camera biz? o_0/ H*ly sh*t. I was under the impression this was a character!! I use to think "WHOA! This guy is fully method, hey?". Now idk what to think.
Still worth it in January 2023...
Yes even in 2023..
Ohhh yes yes👊🏼
this video should be captioned "i cant afford Sony so im going to try hard to rationalize my purchase" ...with the same budget i would rather get a Sony a6400 or Fujifilm XT30, that answers your size problem
MP GC body size is not the problem. Lens size is the Problem. Every System has pros and cons! Important is use the right Instrument for the job.
@@TITAOSTEIN well Fuji lenses are small and light like the m43 so what thats not an argument
@@TITAOSTEIN Lens size and weight doesn't differ between system when comparing glass of equal optical performance.
Great hair.
hahah thanks :D
No, in an environment where mirrorless aps-c and full frame cameras aren't much smaller and lighter anymore, MFT is pointless. Should be a pretty short video.
lol, you're pointless dude. people buy for money they have, ff (bodies AND glass) is first of all for ppl who can buy it.
@@andreika6681 Full frame is much better value for money than MFT. At the same performance, MFT glass is like twice as expensive as full frame glass. The 10-25 f/1.7 for example brings the results of a 20-50 f/3.5 on full frame. On other words it's about as good as a full frame kit lens, but with less zoom range. And it costs a lot more.
@@youknowwho9247 you reason as a photog with 3 or more yrs of experience or a money making pro. during the first 3-5 yrs an amateur will have more than enough room to reach m43 limits with $100-300 lenses, and at least 1/2 of ppl who buy gear are not that rich and don't make any $$, they count every 100 bucks and also they just don't need the top IQ you talk about which only max 5-10% of their public would ever see - i think only 5% of photos end up printed, 10% are viewed on bigger computer screens, and now 90% end up being seen for 2 secs on 5" phone screen, mft is more than enough for 90% common mortals. anyway, whatever you or me say, mft are being manufactured and sold in hundreds of thousands, saying they are pointless is plain ridiculous, market proves the opposite
@@andreika6681 The people who you are describing would be wasting money on any camera. They should just shoot with their phones, or get a cheap point and shoot. MFT is a pointless system because its image quality isn't better than a point and shoot camera, and there are no noticeable weight or size savings compared to aps-c. Not only that, but MFT is actually more expensive than aps-c a lot of the time. That's literally more money for worse results. It's a format that made sense when the sensor itself was the prime cost driver in a camera. That's just not the case anymore. In this day and age, small sensor formats are obsolete thanks to smartphones. That's why MFT sales numbers are plummeting so quickly.
@@youknowwho9247 i'm one of those ppl, pal, and i'd have to pay for a $1000 phone to get better results than my $450 valued g80 + 12-60 can deliver. and i don't need to go for $2-4k FF level just for the pleasure of my ego, i'm not as vain as you're :-)
Hair
Try getting rid of the bloody awful muzak and you might see your subs grow.
Try talking to people like humans, and then people might consider that you have a valuable opinion. Until then: Shut up Paul, you irrelevantly old bellend. Put it on mute, and use the closed captions if you have to.