You hit the nail on the head. A camera is simply a tool to help you achieve your goal. It is not the end all. What I resent is that some individuals imply that your camera is inferior, therefore, you are a lesser photographer and they are better. An easy rejoinder..."Are you happy? Are you happy with your gear?" They say yes. I reply, "So am I. Have a nice day." I walk away!
The trouble is we get that attitude in almost every materialistic based area, my car is faster/bigger/more expensive than yours etc. I’m also a musician and I’ve had this with guitars all my life “you can’t be a proper guitarist because your Fender Stratocaster was made in Mexico but mine is a proper US made model and cost 3 times as much} usually said by someone who struggles to play a chord I hasten to add.
Good video Brain i to am a 4/3s guy Olympus however my son in law is a full frame Sony Professional photographer. What made my day was he was looking at my Flickr account and he was well impressed with my bird photography. He said I have some really stunning photographs and when I mention I was shooting 4/3s. He was very surprised so it just goes to show that it’s not the system it’s the actual person taking the photographs.
I have just sold my APS-C equipment and am in the process of buying a G9 inspired by yourself, Dave Griff and Steve Onions. I do have, and intend to keep, a Nikon D810, which I think will always be a better camera than I am a photographer, but it could substitute for a sledge hammer if necessary, especially with a 24-120 F4 lens on it. Add a Linhof head on a large Gitza tripod and they certainly would not qualify for the featherweight class when being lugged around the White Mountains in Western Maine, where I live in the winter. The APS-C kit (D7100) was not significantly lighter which is why I sold it and have gone for the M43 system. which will be less than half the weight for an equivalent walk around system ie camera plus 24-120mm lens. I can lug the D810 around in the summer/autumn, but when slogging up a mountain with snowshoes it has become just too much for me. I chose the G9 over the Olympus EM-1 mkii ( same price here in the USA) because the G9's menu system is allegedly more intuitive than that of the Olympus, and I struggle with the menu systems on cameras. I have a small Sony which I am sure I never get the best out of because the menu system is gobbledygook to me. I really enjoyed your initial Hadrians Wall 'walk' and the other historical building shots you show, thanks.
The APS format was originally a FILM format, of course, created by Kodak with their Advantix range of products. I even had a Canon SLR that used APS film. During my 45+ years career, I've used most formats from 10" x 8" all the way to M43, which is my current format of choice. My back is no longer strong enough to cope with heavy cameras these days, so M43 is ideal for someone like me, and I have a fabulous 40" x 30" canvas print of the Jungfrau on my living room wall which was shot on one of my Panasonic GX80s, all 16Mp of it! Great video as always 👍🙂
A trip to Bempton Cliffs earlier this week was the final straw for me - left my big lens at home, (600mm which I bought initially to shoot cricket many years ago), simply because it was too heavy to carry and take out on a day trip. Instead, I took my 300mm f/2.8 along with a couple of teleconverters. Even with that relatively light weight alternative, it was still way to heavy for me to fully enjoy the day out taking photos of birds in flight and on the rock faces. Decided to sell the 600mm and use the proceeds to move to a MFT system - will still have credit left over too which is nice! All goes to prove that the best camera and best lens are those which you have with you at the time you want to press the shutter - no use having them stuck at home because they are too heavy and unmanageable to take on trips out to places where you want to take pictures.
I went to bempton cliffs this week. Took my nikon b700 bridge camera and got some cracking photo's. Got some looks from the "Pro's" 😀 The light was good though, which helped. Got a Gx9 and the 100-300 but for birds I often find even the 1440mm of the nikon isn't always enough.
Hi Brian, Thank you for a really well balanced viewpoint on the differences between Full frame, APS-C and Micro four thirds. I recently switched from Canon APS-C to Micro four thirds and as you asked for reasons here are mine. I started with a secondhand Canon 7D mk2. It is a great camera, but not something I enjoyed carrying around my neck with a 75-300mm lens on (or any other lens for that matter) whilst out walking my 3 small dogs. I never contemplated taking my camera on holiday even when staying in the UK. When I joined a local camera club I saw that whilst my photographs were in focus, they weren't as crisp as my peers. So I did some research and discovered that the anti-aliasing filter fitted to the Canon APS-C might have been the issue. Then I looked at the Sigma 150-600mm lens, whilst it isn't considered huge in Canon's system, to me it was still huge, and it wouldn't overcome the anti-aliasing filter. I tried a Canon 200D it was lighter, had a better dynamic range sensor, but was still shackled with the anti-aliasing filter. I spoke to WEX my local photography shop, who had an offer of a brand new EM10 mk3 together with the 14-42mm pancake lens and the 40-150mm zoom lense for just £549. That's a steal in anyone's money so I bought it. It went on holiday with me! Then I bought a secondhand Olympus 75-300mm and was blown away by the results. Both the EM10 mk3 kit and the 75-300 mm lens cost far less than the Sigma 150-600mm lens I was originally thinking about. The pictures are still in focus but are far crisper than those I ever achieved using Canon APS-C system. The EM10 was bought in June 2020 by the May of this year I had traded in all my Canon gear and got a second hand, EM1 mk2, a 12-40mm F2.8, a 40-150mm F2.8, a 45mm F1.8 and a brand new 100-400mm Olympus lens. I now have both the perfect holiday camera and a high end professional set up, with the ability to mix and match for the type of photographs I enjoy taking. If I did fashion photo shoots maybe that anti-aliasing filter would be useful, for the photographs I take it isn't useful and I now have a camera system that gets taken out with me and is used far more. It might just be my mistaken belief but my opinion is some camera manufacturers use their different sensor sizes to make their top end products look better than their less expensive products by cobbling or shackling those less expensive products' sensor. Micro four thirds doesn't do that, however it may suffer from the same perception.
Was an APS-C (Fuji) user until I recently did my own ‘real world’ test between full frame, APS-C and micro four thirds. Was actually shocked with the results and how good micro four thirds was. Of course the full frame was the ‘best’, followed by micro four thirds and the the Fuji APS-C was trailing behind. Very happy going back to an EM-1.
Great comments. I agree with everything you said. I have all three formats that you talked about in the video. I love all of them as they serve different purposes. Keep up with your good work. Love all your videos. 👍👍👍
Always good to hear from anyone who sounds remotely like a Geordie ........ Most of this vid is well known to me, but it takes a voice on RUclips to keep getting the word out ..... we are all a long way from the 24 x 36 film aperture behind the mirror box..... I adopted the 4/3, then M4/3 simply because they were developed "from the ground up" with camera, lenses etc. I will not however, give up my Fujica St-705 which put me on my journey all those years ago ........ long live Kodachrome 64 ! Presently shooting with E-M1 Mark III and backed up with the Mk II and many others ........ keep up the the videos, they are appreciated !
Very good discussion here, Brian. I get a kick out of how our terminology & language changes. What we now call "Full Frame"/ 35 MM was referred to as "Miniature" photography back in the 40's & 50's. 127 film was more or less the low end of medium format. Roughly equal to Fuji's medium format today, as I recall.
Said ‘worked’ should have said ‘served’ with the RAF and the RAAF in the Middle East and at Netherhaven in the Salisbury Plains Training Area in 2007 and 2009. Great times and met a lot of great GB and Commonwealth troops! Celebrated Remembrance Day in 2007 with my RAF and RAAF brethren at Al Udied AB. November 11 is a special day for two reasons for me. (Actually, three reasons. It’s my sister’s birthday anniversary, too!) Thanks for your service!
I learnt a lot from this, thank you. I picked mft because of size and weight. As a photographer well past pension age it made sense. I have built up some nice glass and this alone dissuades me from starting with another system. My only concern is the increasing size of mft cameras, my solution is to stop upgrading. I now have Panny G80 and GX80 as well as the tiny Olympus EPL7. That is more than enough for my level of skill. Must admit I have never managed to get rid of my D4 just in case I want to take photos in a coal celler.
The main reason I moved from Canon full frame to M43 was the weight saving - particularly the lenses. Being slightly longer in the tooth, I was not 'enjoying' my photography and found I was leaving kit behind when going out and about, rather than have the literal pain of a large and heavy kit bag. Current gear in the G9, GX9 ( and a TZ200) and a selection of PL and G lenses. The ergonomics fit me well with the standardised menu structure being simple and easily customised. The members of my local 'camera club' were a bit scathing, with their opinions based on preconceptions ( particularly the equivalence bit - twice the focal length thing also means half the f stop ?!? ) Next time I will point them in the direction of this post to put them right.
Well done again Brian. I have used and enjoyed film, phone, 1”, mft, apsc and ff. It’s all about the joy of photography. Currently enjoying M1 iii, Pen-F and G9. And watching RUclips videos. Thank you.
Hi Brian, as you say you are interested in what your viewers opinions are then consider the reason we subscribe and it is because WE are interested in your opinion. Mainly because of your many years of photographic experience and the "common sense" you speak. In my case I recently retired and want to take more pictures and move to a camera system (as opposed to fixed zoom lenses with 1" sensors) and really don't know which one to choose that will show me an improvement in my photos. Soon my travelling will resume so watching YT videos to gain enough knowledge to choose the right system for me is instead of going to a camera shop and interrogating a sales person. Keep up the good work - give us your opinions and reasoning - give us reviews of equipment you own or can get your hands on and you WILL get more subscribers and views on YT. Finally thank you for your efforts we do appreciate it.
Thank you David. I’m actually really surprised anyone wants to hear what I say and listen to my opinions. Each comment is a pleasant and welcome surprise. Lol. I’m very much a pragmatist when it comes to the photography. I suppose I’ve become that due to the many years I longed for the expensive gear shown in the marketing and unable to afford it. Then finding out when I could afford it that much of the “huge differences” were just hyped up. And also, of course, realising that the biggest difference was achieved by altering the spec of the lump of lard behind the camera ie me. It’s a bit like driving a fiesta and then getting a Ferrari, the performance difference may be incredible but if I’m a bad driver in the slow car I’ll still be a bad driver in the fast one. I remember the first time I shot Full Frame digital how disappointed I was that there was so little difference between that and the APS-C camera I’d been using. My technique and working knowledge was the same on both Best wishes
As with every product, whether it is a car, a piece of furniture or a phone, there are always pros and cons. What is special about cameras is that they come in "systems", and most photographers have tried several of them, which makes this hobby extra expensive. Therefore the advise given in this video might be very valuable for many people.
Had the APS-C to the Full Frame to the MFTs.... I'm still shoot MFTs and love it, love the vintage/retro look of the cameras, currently shooting with a Pen-F and E-m5... will be upgrading soon to the E-M1 mkii
So, tech talk it is? ;-) I agree with your discussion and the points you are making. For instance, some of my all-time favourites I shot on a Nikon D70 (for the not so old amongst us ... Nikon DX sensor with 6 MP), and they still hold up for MY purposes. Also, if I learn about the limitations and opportunities of my camera, I can make better use of it. For instance, separating a subject from the background depends on distances between camera, subject and background as well as the focal length of the lens and the aperture used; so learning about positioning can help you. Then there was once was the famous "Group f/64" around landscape photographers like Ansel Adams who were all about deep depth of field - hence f/64. Purpose, fashion of the times, knowing the principles ... even with all those automatics involved, photography is still a learning game, I think. Thanks for your comprehensive discussion. Oh, one more thing ... Robin Wong, among others, pointed out the usage of M43 format beyond the classic photography field (like us) in industrial purposes ... production line surveillance cameras and more. So it's actually a viable format with quite some demand for supporting the system. And Sony just recently announced a new M43 sensor with improved properties. The story goes on!
Those points about separating a subject are spot on. I’ve just responded to another post about the first time I shot digital FF. I realised while I was typing that some of my being unimpressed by the difference was that I was subject and shot orientated in my head, I just worked around any differences as I do in any shoot. I come from a time when an f4 zoom was considered fast, unless you took out a second mortgage, yet still got some great shots using the techniques you describe. Maybe that makes you adaptable. Plus it’s no good complaining to a customer that you had “the wrong lens” with you. They are not interested, they just want the photo and you have to learn how to get it using the tools you have. I’d forgotten about group f64, thanks for reminding me. And yes, I’ve been taking photos for 54 years now still learning, even if it’s just how much I don’t know lol
@@ThatMicro43Guy Thanks for the great reply. As to learning ... I find this aspect fascinating about our photography. Livelong learning for us ... very dynamic and exciting, even invigorating.
You're correct in my case. When buying a Nikon mirrorless camera, I chose to buy the Z5 over the Z50 because the cost difference wasn't that much. I shoot all the formats. Film, MFT, APS-C and full frame. I use the correct tool for the job. It's nice.
Hello Brian, I recently switched from an APS-C Canon EOS760D to a Sony A7R (original version) with a pro quality lens. I have been happy with my Canon however it was paired with cheap glass and for the increase in image quality that I was looking for I decided I would make the jump to full frame. from the few shots I have so far I am sure that I will be happy with my switch (the majority of my shots are landscapes) but I also want you to know that my everyday carry is an Olympus pen ep-5. It's awesome pocketable and with 14-44mm lens adaptable, well done, Derek
Absolutely. Plus people, in my opinion, over worry about DR. As an exercise I occasionally do a spot metering on a shot. First at the brightest point then the darkest and compare them. Rarely do I see more than 6-8 stops of difference yet to the eye they appear very different. So taking a photo of that scene only needs 6-8 stops. Yet we see people online arguing about differences in decimal places of DR in excess of double these measurement. Unless of course those people cannot get their metering right in the first place and end up having to push hard to retrieve a decent image….I, of course, couldn’t say that though lol
I'd really liked OM-S to create a new Though TG serie based on a 1" sensor : it would be such a lovely pocket camera for holidays, underwater, sports and so on... I do love mft so much as it's the best system in 2021 to suit my needs with such high quality! Nevertheless I hope some manufacturers would develop same system in 1". Nikon 1 system with nowadays technology would be amazing alongside its brilliant Z system. The difference between 1" and mft are just the same than between mft and aps-c so won't be a so huge loss concerning IQ... But should be so tiny!
I moved from apsc to full frame and then to m4/3. Point being my photo’s with m4/3 are just as good or just as bad as those with full frame. I just could not log those heavy dslr’s anymore. Sometimes, when I don’t have to walk far I still take out my Canon 5diii. You have a little more latitude in full frame to recover highlights, but let’s be honest, with mirrorless camera’s there is no excuse for not nailing the exposure every time.
If you want small MFT get a GM1 or GM5. The G9 is just big because of ergonomics. I usually always pick my cheaper smaller lenses over my expensive „pro“ lenses. Shows what I prefer. I‘ve often been peeking towards 35mm eq. The S5 with the Sigma I-Line would be my thing. But I won‘t become a better fotographer. So I prefer to learn how to frame better, use light more effetively and get a general feeling for what makes a good picture.
Well said Brian, I’ve used Sony APS-C, and Sony full frame, much preferring the weight, and handling of my EM5 iii, I enjoy taking portraits, and the Sigma 30mm, 56mm MFT lenses give me excellent sharpness, and creamy bokeh wide open at f/1.4
I picked up a used GX1 and GF2 along with some adapters to Nikon and Olympus manual lenses. They were OK, and fun to use but can't blow them up. My adapters were not speed boosters. Did pick up a 4/3 Oly and found an adapter that could send info to the lens...not too bad. My M43 Oly 17mm 2.8 pancake is prob the best bet for quality.
I've not seen big improvements on apsc. The lenses and lens cost and menu system and features is what keeps me at m43. Unless your making money with your gear. Bits hard to justify FF prices. Now the new gfx medium formats are body sizes are almost fullframe size. There is many features on m43 not found on other formats.
Look at a full frame camera, then add one or 2 lenses and you fall off the chair. Until such a full frame combination reaches a price point of one average monthly salary there will be no newcomers to photography and that will be detrimental to the whole industry. Such a price level can only be achieved with smaller sensors and glass.
Micro 4/3 can have a size and price advantage but in reality there are some big cameras and lenses. People bought those exprnsive and big lenses ( mainly Zuiko pro range with their f1.2 primes and their f2.8 zooms) High resolution FF mirrorless are also good APS-C cameras . You can increase the reach of your lenses and keep a very good quality. I have a high resolution FF with f4 zooms and f1.8/ f2 primes ans I have a compact micro 4/3 camera with really smaller lenses. . There is a lack of quality offer in compact bodies and lenses from Olympus and Panasonic. Espeacially Olympus worked in the wrong direction. The idea that small is beautyful was pehaps too ambitious for the reality of the market. Olympus showed on the other side that going big and expensive with a small sensor is not the solution. Getting more dof wth an FF is not a problem : you stop down.
Brian, thank you for responding to my request that you discuss the differences in the "experience" of shooting with the different formats, specifically APS-C and M4/3. I enjoyed your interpretation and your real life explanations of what to expect with the different formats. The size and weight of the lenses are two very big considerations. I had not thought about the difference in aspect ratio. I shoot mainly with Canon APS-C (EOS Rebel SL2 / 200D). It's quite small, but not pocketable, and with many of the big EF-S and EF lenses, it's not exactly a good "walking around" camera, either. I recently bought a very affordable Canon mirrorless, the consumer grade M100, which is fun to use. I tend to carry it (and the kit 15-45 lens) with me many times when I go out walking. The all-screen touch controls are unique and quite appealing to me in the era of smartphone touch screens, but clearly not appealing to everyone. Interestingly, near the end of your video you mentioned the bridge cameras with the 1" sensor. In 2015 I purchased the Canon G7X (Canon's answer to the Sony RX100). In 2017 it was the only camera I took with me when we visited the UK on an excellent Rick Steves tour of the "Villages of Southern England." The pictures I got of your beautiful country (from Dover to Lands End) with that camera are excellent, including many shot in low light. The more I think about it, a travel camera for me must be a good point-and-shoot with reasonable zoom range, otherwise I'll get far too few pictures in the same amount of time. For touristy travel, the high-end p&s cameras like the current G5X II can be the perfect blend of good image quality and convenience. You mentioned the tiny lenses and sensors in smartphones. The smartphone pictures owe their quality to the sophisticated internal processing, currently lacking in "real" cameras. And you're right -- the camera engineers need to start incorporating that technology in proper cameras. Thanks for your kind words about our Memorial Day here in the U.S. For me it's a time of reflection and re-living time I spent with fellow soldiers who never came home. But it's also a time for family gatherings with burgers and beer, as we welcome the return of summertime.
When you're comparing depth of field and saying that MFT is not as shallow, are ypu comparing say the 50mm lens on the mft against a 100mm lens full frame, or are.ypu comparing the 50mm on the MFT against the 50mm full frame.cropped down to the same field of view? Isn't the depth of field a function of the lens rather than the sensor and the deeper dof only.really a perceived greater dof when comparing against different focal length?
I’m comparing field of view as you suggest a 50mm M43 to a 100mm FF. I do though use this a reference more than anything else. More to keep the trolls happy lol There seems to be an obsession with shallow DOF but when using a FF for portraits using my favourite 85mm or 105mm lenses I found that using anything smaller than say f4 for a head shot was so shallow that focusing on the eyes would leave the tip of the nose and the back of the ears soft using my f1.8 45mm Olympus I can still achieve this. So although I ‘can’ get a shallower DOF from FF I rarely chose to or needed to.
@@ThatMicro43Guy Yeah, I think people seem to be too obsessed with full frame equivalent- it's only useful if you have to compare/recreate a shot made on different systems. Otherwise I don't find it useful to think what lens would a different camera use.
Hi Brian, thanks for this. I have the omd em1 mkii. I agree with what you said but over the last year or so experimented with apsc, however for various reasons I have returned to olympus. 2 questions I would like my images to be better quality, I take mainly portraits do you think Olympus pro lenses are worth it and would make much of difference? Secondly what's your take on the Fuji xt4, it's certainly popular, I dont like the grip on it but I guess you can probably get an attachment. Thanks for your hard work.
They are worth it, if you can afford them. However, for portraits I shoot almost exclusively with prime lenses. They are better quality than most zooms as they are engineered to excel at only one fixed focal length, usually much lighter and certainly faster. The fast pro zooms coming in at F2.8 the lesser primes starting at f1.8 and pro ones at around f1.2. The tiny 45mm 1.8 Olympus is still my go to portrait lens and a 25mm prime ideal for the 3/4 or full length people shots. Recently I acquired the 17mm f1.8 and that is giving some lovely results for the more casual than posed portraits. And the price is not far different than that of a single 2.8 pro zoom. Second question, honest answer, I’ve never used it. But I have a serious belief that there are almost no bad cameras or systems from the major manufacturers now. The standards are so high that any real bad one would probably stand out so much it would bring the company down. However, there are major differences in their interpretation of features and ergonomics. Features I can take with a pinch of salt, they are the toys to make shots easier or specialist shots achievable, most of us don’t take specialist shots so most cameras will do the job. 90% of my personal photos are taken with a kit zoom 12-60 or 14-42 and the biggest feature I use is the ibis to allow that slower lens to get into dark places without a tripod. For my portrait work a reasonable fast 45mm prime and a low iso and I’m happy. My rather “expensive” 7-14 zoom stays in the bag 95% of the time and comes out for 5% for my “specialist” shots where I get “arty” and deliberately induce distortion. Ergonomics though are hyper important to me. A camera which feels good to use, is the right weight and balance makes me want to use it, one which is uncomfortable doesn’t. The trouble is that my hands and body shape/strength/endurance is different to everyone else’s. if you don’t like the grip then I’d rate that higher than the features or format in my choice. It’s no good buying a great camera that some guy on the internet said was great just to have it sitting a cupboard because it doesn’t inspire you to take it out. Hope that helps
@@ThatMicro43Guy wow, thanks for that comprehensive reply Brian very much appreciated. I've been using the Olympus for some years, but sometimes I'm just not getting the quality I want. I took it out yesterday and got a few shots, but it doesn't have the level of detail I want. I guess it just me and I probably need to just review.my settings. I shoot mainly in aperture priority. Thanks very much for your feedback. Enjoy the son.
You hit the nail on the head. A camera is simply a tool to help you achieve your goal. It is not the end all. What I resent is that some individuals imply that your camera is inferior, therefore, you are a lesser photographer and they are better. An easy rejoinder..."Are you happy? Are you happy with your gear?" They say yes. I reply, "So am I. Have a nice day." I walk away!
The trouble is we get that attitude in almost every materialistic based area, my car is faster/bigger/more expensive than yours etc. I’m also a musician and I’ve had this with guitars all my life “you can’t be a proper guitarist because your Fender Stratocaster was made in Mexico but mine is a proper US made model and cost 3 times as much} usually said by someone who struggles to play a chord I hasten to add.
Good video Brain i to am a 4/3s guy Olympus however my son in law is a full frame Sony Professional photographer. What made my day was he was looking at my Flickr account and he was well impressed with my bird photography. He said I have some really stunning photographs and when I mention I was shooting 4/3s. He was very surprised so it just goes to show that it’s not the system it’s the actual person taking the photographs.
It took our two great country's to bring down the bad guys!!!!!
I have just sold my APS-C equipment and am in the process of buying a G9 inspired by yourself, Dave Griff and Steve Onions. I do have, and intend to keep, a Nikon D810, which I think will always be a better camera than I am a photographer, but it could substitute for a sledge hammer if necessary, especially with a 24-120 F4 lens on it. Add a Linhof head on a large Gitza tripod and they certainly would not qualify for the featherweight class when being lugged around the White Mountains in Western Maine, where I live in the winter. The APS-C kit (D7100) was not significantly lighter which is why I sold it and have gone for the M43 system. which will be less than half the weight for an equivalent walk around system ie camera plus 24-120mm lens. I can lug the D810 around in the summer/autumn, but when slogging up a mountain with snowshoes it has become just too much for me.
I chose the G9 over the Olympus EM-1 mkii ( same price here in the USA) because the G9's menu system is allegedly more intuitive than that of the Olympus, and I struggle with the menu systems on cameras. I have a small Sony which I am sure I never get the best out of because the menu system is gobbledygook to me.
I really enjoyed your initial Hadrians Wall 'walk' and the other historical building shots you show, thanks.
The APS format was originally a FILM format, of course, created by Kodak with their Advantix range of products. I even had a Canon SLR that used APS film. During my 45+ years career, I've used most formats from 10" x 8" all the way to M43, which is my current format of choice. My back is no longer strong enough to cope with heavy cameras these days, so M43 is ideal for someone like me, and I have a fabulous 40" x 30" canvas print of the Jungfrau on my living room wall which was shot on one of my Panasonic GX80s, all 16Mp of it! Great video as always 👍🙂
A trip to Bempton Cliffs earlier this week was the final straw for me - left my big lens at home, (600mm which I bought initially to shoot cricket many years ago), simply because it was too heavy to carry and take out on a day trip. Instead, I took my 300mm f/2.8 along with a couple of teleconverters. Even with that relatively light weight alternative, it was still way to heavy for me to fully enjoy the day out taking photos of birds in flight and on the rock faces. Decided to sell the 600mm and use the proceeds to move to a MFT system - will still have credit left over too which is nice! All goes to prove that the best camera and best lens are those which you have with you at the time you want to press the shutter - no use having them stuck at home because they are too heavy and unmanageable to take on trips out to places where you want to take pictures.
I went to bempton cliffs this week.
Took my nikon b700 bridge camera and got some cracking photo's. Got some looks from the "Pro's" 😀
The light was good though, which helped.
Got a Gx9 and the 100-300 but for birds I often find even the 1440mm of the nikon isn't always enough.
Good opinion, Thank you
I love the smaller size of the m4/3rd system, especially the lenses. I wish there was a tiny weatherproof M4/3rd body to match with tiny lenses.
words of wisdom!
Hi Brian,
Thank you for a really well balanced viewpoint on the differences between Full frame, APS-C and Micro four thirds. I recently switched from Canon APS-C to Micro four thirds and as you asked for reasons here are mine. I started with a secondhand Canon 7D mk2. It is a great camera, but not something I enjoyed carrying around my neck with a 75-300mm lens on (or any other lens for that matter) whilst out walking my 3 small dogs. I never contemplated taking my camera on holiday even when staying in the UK. When I joined a local camera club I saw that whilst my photographs were in focus, they weren't as crisp as my peers.
So I did some research and discovered that the anti-aliasing filter fitted to the Canon APS-C might have been the issue. Then I looked at the Sigma 150-600mm lens, whilst it isn't considered huge in Canon's system, to me it was still huge, and it wouldn't overcome the anti-aliasing filter.
I tried a Canon 200D it was lighter, had a better dynamic range sensor, but was still shackled with the anti-aliasing filter.
I spoke to WEX my local photography shop, who had an offer of a brand new EM10 mk3 together with the 14-42mm pancake lens and the 40-150mm zoom lense for just £549. That's a steal in anyone's money so I bought it. It went on holiday with me!
Then I bought a secondhand Olympus 75-300mm and was blown away by the results. Both the EM10 mk3 kit and the 75-300 mm lens cost far less than the Sigma 150-600mm lens I was originally thinking about. The pictures are still in focus but are far crisper than those I ever achieved using Canon APS-C system.
The EM10 was bought in June 2020 by the May of this year I had traded in all my Canon gear and got a second hand, EM1 mk2, a 12-40mm F2.8, a 40-150mm F2.8, a 45mm F1.8 and a brand new 100-400mm Olympus lens.
I now have both the perfect holiday camera and a high end professional set up, with the ability to mix and match for the type of photographs I enjoy taking.
If I did fashion photo shoots maybe that anti-aliasing filter would be useful, for the photographs I take it isn't useful and I now have a camera system that gets taken out with me and is used far more.
It might just be my mistaken belief but my opinion is some camera manufacturers use their different sensor sizes to make their top end products look better than their less expensive products by cobbling or shackling those less expensive products' sensor. Micro four thirds doesn't do that, however it may suffer from the same perception.
Was an APS-C (Fuji) user until I recently did my own ‘real world’ test between full frame, APS-C and micro four thirds. Was actually shocked with the results and how good micro four thirds was. Of course the full frame was the ‘best’, followed by micro four thirds and the the Fuji APS-C was trailing behind. Very happy going back to an EM-1.
Me too i tried the x-t3 g9 sony bought the em1x was so scared I would hate its size it fits perfect in may xxl hands
@@garybrown9719 ibid, I purchased a Panasonic G95 which fits my industrial size hands very well with a battery grip.
Good stuff, enjoyed it very much🙏
Great comments. I agree with everything you said. I have all three formats that you talked about in the video. I love all of them as they serve different purposes. Keep up with your good work. Love all your videos. 👍👍👍
Always good to hear from anyone who sounds remotely like a Geordie ........ Most of this vid is well known to me, but it takes a voice on RUclips to keep getting the word out ..... we are all a long way from the 24 x 36 film aperture behind the mirror box..... I adopted the 4/3, then M4/3 simply because they were developed "from the ground up" with camera, lenses etc. I will not however, give up my Fujica St-705 which put me on my journey all those years ago ........ long live Kodachrome 64 ! Presently shooting with E-M1 Mark III and backed up with the Mk II and many others ........ keep up the the videos, they are appreciated !
Very good discussion here, Brian. I get a kick out of how our terminology & language changes. What we now call "Full Frame"/ 35 MM was referred to as "Miniature" photography back in the 40's & 50's. 127 film was more or less the low end of medium format. Roughly equal to Fuji's medium format today, as I recall.
History repeats itself and the same old stories similar to the early 35mm days.
Said ‘worked’ should have said ‘served’ with the RAF and the RAAF in the Middle East and at Netherhaven in the Salisbury Plains Training Area in 2007 and 2009. Great times and met a lot of great GB and Commonwealth troops! Celebrated Remembrance Day in 2007 with my RAF and RAAF brethren at Al Udied AB. November 11 is a special day for two reasons for me. (Actually, three reasons. It’s my sister’s birthday anniversary, too!) Thanks for your service!
And for yours too.
I learnt a lot from this, thank you. I picked mft because of size and weight. As a photographer well past pension age it made sense. I have built up some nice glass and this alone dissuades me from starting with another system. My only concern is the increasing size of mft cameras, my solution is to stop upgrading. I now have Panny G80 and GX80 as well as the tiny Olympus EPL7. That is more than enough for my level of skill. Must admit I have never managed to get rid of my D4 just in case I want to take photos in a coal celler.
Ha, a coal cellar. That's funny. I never use my ff either, but I still have it.
The main reason I moved from Canon full frame to M43 was the weight saving - particularly the lenses.
Being slightly longer in the tooth, I was not 'enjoying' my photography and found I was leaving kit behind when going out and about, rather than have the literal pain of a large and heavy kit bag.
Current gear in the G9, GX9 ( and a TZ200) and a selection of PL and G lenses. The ergonomics fit me well with the standardised menu structure being simple and easily customised.
The members of my local 'camera club' were a bit scathing, with their opinions based on preconceptions ( particularly the equivalence bit - twice the focal length thing also means half the f stop ?!? ) Next time I will point them in the direction of this post to put them right.
Well done again Brian. I have used and enjoyed film, phone, 1”, mft, apsc and ff. It’s all about the joy of photography. Currently enjoying M1 iii, Pen-F and G9. And watching RUclips videos. Thank you.
Hi Brian, as you say you are interested in what your viewers opinions are then consider the reason we subscribe and it is because WE are interested in your opinion. Mainly because of your many years of photographic experience and the "common sense" you speak. In my case I recently retired and want to take more pictures and move to a camera system (as opposed to fixed zoom lenses with 1" sensors) and really don't know which one to choose that will show me an improvement in my photos. Soon my travelling will resume so watching YT videos to gain enough knowledge to choose the right system for me is instead of going to a camera shop and interrogating a sales person. Keep up the good work - give us your opinions and reasoning - give us reviews of equipment you own or can get your hands on and you WILL get more subscribers and views on YT. Finally thank you for your efforts we do appreciate it.
Thank you David. I’m actually really surprised anyone wants to hear what I say and listen to my opinions. Each comment is a pleasant and welcome surprise. Lol.
I’m very much a pragmatist when it comes to the photography. I suppose I’ve become that due to the many years I longed for the expensive gear shown in the marketing and unable to afford it. Then finding out when I could afford it that much of the “huge differences” were just hyped up.
And also, of course, realising that the biggest difference was achieved by altering the spec of the lump of lard behind the camera ie me. It’s a bit like driving a fiesta and then getting a Ferrari, the performance difference may be incredible but if I’m a bad driver in the slow car I’ll still be a bad driver in the fast one.
I remember the first time I shot Full Frame digital how disappointed I was that there was so little difference between that and the APS-C camera I’d been using. My technique and working knowledge was the same on both
Best wishes
As with every product, whether it is a car, a piece of furniture or a phone, there are always pros and cons. What is special about cameras is that they come in "systems", and most photographers have tried several of them, which makes this hobby extra expensive. Therefore the advise given in this video might be very valuable for many people.
Had the APS-C to the Full Frame to the MFTs.... I'm still shoot MFTs and love it, love the vintage/retro look of the cameras, currently shooting with a Pen-F and E-m5... will be upgrading soon to the E-M1 mkii
So, tech talk it is? ;-) I agree with your discussion and the points you are making. For instance, some of my all-time favourites I shot on a Nikon D70 (for the not so old amongst us ... Nikon DX sensor with 6 MP), and they still hold up for MY purposes. Also, if I learn about the limitations and opportunities of my camera, I can make better use of it. For instance, separating a subject from the background depends on distances between camera, subject and background as well as the focal length of the lens and the aperture used; so learning about positioning can help you. Then there was once was the famous "Group f/64" around landscape photographers like Ansel Adams who were all about deep depth of field - hence f/64. Purpose, fashion of the times, knowing the principles ... even with all those automatics involved, photography is still a learning game, I think.
Thanks for your comprehensive discussion.
Oh, one more thing ... Robin Wong, among others, pointed out the usage of M43 format beyond the classic photography field (like us) in industrial purposes ... production line surveillance cameras and more. So it's actually a viable format with quite some demand for supporting the system. And Sony just recently announced a new M43 sensor with improved properties. The story goes on!
Those points about separating a subject are spot on. I’ve just responded to another post about the first time I shot digital FF. I realised while I was typing that some of my being unimpressed by the difference was that I was subject and shot orientated in my head, I just worked around any differences as I do in any shoot. I come from a time when an f4 zoom was considered fast, unless you took out a second mortgage, yet still got some great shots using the techniques you describe. Maybe that makes you adaptable. Plus it’s no good complaining to a customer that you had “the wrong lens” with you. They are not interested, they just want the photo and you have to learn how to get it using the tools you have.
I’d forgotten about group f64, thanks for reminding me. And yes, I’ve been taking photos for 54 years now still learning, even if it’s just how much I don’t know lol
@@ThatMicro43Guy Thanks for the great reply. As to learning ... I find this aspect fascinating about our photography. Livelong learning for us ... very dynamic and exciting, even invigorating.
You're correct in my case. When buying a Nikon mirrorless camera, I chose to buy the Z5 over the Z50 because the cost difference wasn't that much. I shoot all the formats. Film, MFT, APS-C and full frame. I use the correct tool for the job. It's nice.
Hello Brian, I recently switched from an APS-C Canon EOS760D to a Sony A7R (original version) with a pro quality lens. I have been happy with my Canon however it was paired with cheap glass and for the increase in image quality that I was looking for I decided I would make the jump to full frame. from the few shots I have so far I am sure that I will be happy with my switch (the majority of my shots are landscapes) but I also want you to know that my everyday carry is an Olympus pen ep-5. It's awesome pocketable and with 14-44mm lens adaptable, well done, Derek
All of your conclusions are solid. The best camera is the one that you will use…
The best camera is the one that produces results that satisfy requirements. Full frame will always provide the best possible basic image.
So much common sense here. Thank you Brian. Refreshing change from all the "naysayers".
Best Regards
Dynamic range and image quality of the The e-m1 is very close to the 5D iii in real world side by side tests. But not on paper. Lol
Absolutely.
Plus people, in my opinion, over worry about DR. As an exercise I occasionally do a spot metering on a shot. First at the brightest point then the darkest and compare them. Rarely do I see more than 6-8 stops of difference yet to the eye they appear very different. So taking a photo of that scene only needs 6-8 stops. Yet we see people online arguing about differences in decimal places of DR in excess of double these measurement.
Unless of course those people cannot get their metering right in the first place and end up having to push hard to retrieve a decent image….I, of course, couldn’t say that though lol
I'd really liked OM-S to create a new Though TG serie based on a 1" sensor : it would be such a lovely pocket camera for holidays, underwater, sports and so on...
I do love mft so much as it's the best system in 2021 to suit my needs with such high quality! Nevertheless I hope some manufacturers would develop same system in 1". Nikon 1 system with nowadays technology would be amazing alongside its brilliant Z system. The difference between 1" and mft are just the same than between mft and aps-c so won't be a so huge loss concerning IQ... But should be so tiny!
I moved from apsc to full frame and then to m4/3. Point being my photo’s with m4/3 are just as good or just as bad as those with full frame. I just could not log those heavy dslr’s anymore. Sometimes, when I don’t have to walk far I still take out my Canon 5diii.
You have a little more latitude in full frame to recover highlights, but let’s be honest, with mirrorless camera’s there is no excuse for not nailing the exposure every time.
If you want small MFT get a GM1 or GM5. The G9 is just big because of ergonomics. I usually always pick my cheaper smaller lenses over my expensive „pro“ lenses. Shows what I prefer. I‘ve often been peeking towards 35mm eq. The S5 with the Sigma I-Line would be my thing. But I won‘t become a better fotographer. So I prefer to learn how to frame better, use light more effetively and get a general feeling for what makes a good picture.
Well said Brian, I’ve used Sony APS-C, and Sony full frame, much preferring the weight, and handling of my EM5 iii, I enjoy taking portraits, and the Sigma 30mm, 56mm MFT lenses give me excellent sharpness, and creamy bokeh wide open at f/1.4
I picked up a used GX1 and GF2 along with some adapters to Nikon and Olympus manual lenses. They were OK, and fun to use but can't blow them up. My adapters were not speed boosters. Did pick up a 4/3 Oly and found an adapter that could send info to the lens...not too bad. My M43 Oly 17mm 2.8 pancake is prob the best bet for quality.
I like you Brian.😉 Family came from Dedham 1635. Still anon conformist like you I suspect. Appreciate your authenticity. Peace, good health.
Go M 4/3! The best system ever.
I've not seen big improvements on apsc. The lenses and lens cost and menu system and features is what keeps me at m43. Unless your making money with your gear. Bits hard to justify FF prices. Now the new gfx medium formats are body sizes are almost fullframe size. There is many features on m43 not found on other formats.
Look at a full frame camera, then add one or 2 lenses and you fall off the chair. Until such a full frame combination reaches a price point of one average monthly salary there will be no newcomers to photography and that will be detrimental to the whole industry. Such a price level can only be achieved with smaller sensors and glass.
Micro 4/3 can have a size and price advantage but in reality there are some big cameras and lenses. People bought those exprnsive and big lenses ( mainly Zuiko pro range with their f1.2 primes and their f2.8 zooms)
High resolution FF mirrorless are also good APS-C cameras . You can increase the reach of your lenses and keep a very good quality.
I have a high resolution FF with f4 zooms and f1.8/ f2 primes ans I have a compact micro 4/3 camera with really smaller lenses. .
There is a lack of quality offer in compact bodies and lenses from Olympus and Panasonic. Espeacially Olympus worked in the wrong direction.
The idea that small is beautyful was pehaps too ambitious for the reality of the market. Olympus showed on the other side that going big and expensive with a small sensor is not the solution.
Getting more dof wth an FF is not a problem : you stop down.
Brian, thank you for responding to my request that you discuss the differences in the "experience" of shooting with the different formats, specifically APS-C and M4/3. I enjoyed your interpretation and your real life explanations of what to expect with the different formats. The size and weight of the lenses are two very big considerations. I had not thought about the difference in aspect ratio.
I shoot mainly with Canon APS-C (EOS Rebel SL2 / 200D). It's quite small, but not pocketable, and with many of the big EF-S and EF lenses, it's not exactly a good "walking around" camera, either. I recently bought a very affordable Canon mirrorless, the consumer grade M100, which is fun to use. I tend to carry it (and the kit 15-45 lens) with me many times when I go out walking. The all-screen touch controls are unique and quite appealing to me in the era of smartphone touch screens, but clearly not appealing to everyone.
Interestingly, near the end of your video you mentioned the bridge cameras with the 1" sensor. In 2015 I purchased the Canon G7X (Canon's answer to the Sony RX100). In 2017 it was the only camera I took with me when we visited the UK on an excellent Rick Steves tour of the "Villages of Southern England." The pictures I got of your beautiful country (from Dover to Lands End) with that camera are excellent, including many shot in low light. The more I think about it, a travel camera for me must be a good point-and-shoot with reasonable zoom range, otherwise I'll get far too few pictures in the same amount of time. For touristy travel, the high-end p&s cameras like the current G5X II can be the perfect blend of good image quality and convenience.
You mentioned the tiny lenses and sensors in smartphones. The smartphone pictures owe their quality to the sophisticated internal processing, currently lacking in "real" cameras. And you're right -- the camera engineers need to start incorporating that technology in proper cameras.
Thanks for your kind words about our Memorial Day here in the U.S. For me it's a time of reflection and re-living time I spent with fellow soldiers who never came home. But it's also a time for family gatherings with burgers and beer, as we welcome the return of summertime.
When you're comparing depth of field and saying that MFT is not as shallow, are ypu comparing say the 50mm lens on the mft against a 100mm lens full frame, or are.ypu comparing the 50mm on the MFT against the 50mm full frame.cropped down to the same field of view?
Isn't the depth of field a function of the lens rather than the sensor and the deeper dof only.really a perceived greater dof when comparing against different focal length?
I’m comparing field of view as you suggest a 50mm M43 to a 100mm FF.
I do though use this a reference more than anything else. More to keep the trolls happy lol
There seems to be an obsession with shallow DOF but when using a FF for portraits using my favourite 85mm or 105mm lenses I found that using anything smaller than say f4 for a head shot was so shallow that focusing on the eyes would leave the tip of the nose and the back of the ears soft using my f1.8 45mm Olympus I can still achieve this. So although I ‘can’ get a shallower DOF from FF I rarely chose to or needed to.
@@ThatMicro43Guy Yeah, I think people seem to be too obsessed with full frame equivalent- it's only useful if you have to compare/recreate a shot made on different systems. Otherwise I don't find it useful to think what lens would a different camera use.
Hi Brian, thanks for this. I have the omd em1 mkii. I agree with what you said but over the last year or so experimented with apsc, however for various reasons I have returned to olympus. 2 questions I would like my images to be better quality, I take mainly portraits do you think Olympus pro lenses are worth it and would make much of difference? Secondly what's your take on the Fuji xt4, it's certainly popular, I dont like the grip on it but I guess you can probably get an attachment. Thanks for your hard work.
They are worth it, if you can afford them. However, for portraits I shoot almost exclusively with prime lenses. They are better quality than most zooms as they are engineered to excel at only one fixed focal length, usually much lighter and certainly faster. The fast pro zooms coming in at F2.8 the lesser primes starting at f1.8 and pro ones at around f1.2.
The tiny 45mm 1.8 Olympus is still my go to portrait lens and a 25mm prime ideal for the 3/4 or full length people shots. Recently I acquired the 17mm f1.8 and that is giving some lovely results for the more casual than posed portraits. And the price is not far different than that of a single 2.8 pro zoom.
Second question, honest answer, I’ve never used it. But I have a serious belief that there are almost no bad cameras or systems from the major manufacturers now. The standards are so high that any real bad one would probably stand out so much it would bring the company down. However, there are major differences in their interpretation of features and ergonomics.
Features I can take with a pinch of salt, they are the toys to make shots easier or specialist shots achievable, most of us don’t take specialist shots so most cameras will do the job. 90% of my personal photos are taken with a kit zoom 12-60 or 14-42 and the biggest feature I use is the ibis to allow that slower lens to get into dark places without a tripod. For my portrait work a reasonable fast 45mm prime and a low iso and I’m happy. My rather “expensive” 7-14 zoom stays in the bag 95% of the time and comes out for 5% for my “specialist” shots where I get “arty” and deliberately induce distortion.
Ergonomics though are hyper important to me. A camera which feels good to use, is the right weight and balance makes me want to use it, one which is uncomfortable doesn’t. The trouble is that my hands and body shape/strength/endurance is different to everyone else’s. if you don’t like the grip then I’d rate that higher than the features or format in my choice.
It’s no good buying a great camera that some guy on the internet said was great just to have it sitting a cupboard because it doesn’t inspire you to take it out.
Hope that helps
@@ThatMicro43Guy wow, thanks for that comprehensive reply Brian very much appreciated. I've been using the Olympus for some years, but sometimes I'm just not getting the quality I want. I took it out yesterday and got a few shots, but it doesn't have the level of detail I want. I guess it just me and I probably need to just review.my settings. I shoot mainly in aperture priority. Thanks very much for your feedback. Enjoy the son.