Your channel is one of the most serious, polite, comprehensive, ethical and aesthetic made one. Indeed, sensor size does NOT matter (marketing victims excluded). Proud user of Lumix cameras since 2008. Never looked back.
@@cineffect Then it would be correct to say that MFT is more than enough for you. Other users will prefer cameras with a larger sensor or limit themselves to the iPhone. But to categorically claim that the sensor size does not matter is not true and does not correspond to the situation that has developed in the camera market.
We went through a lot of versions of MFT to get to the GH7. I’ve traded up since shooting multiple GH5 for Events. You are correct I moved to FF due to lowlight issues when shooting Weddings Venues. Once you move to Full Frame the MFT lens collection has to move with it. I wish I could buy the GH7 but it wouldn’t make sense with my Full Frame Investment. I just commend LUMIX for having both tracks for us.
only those think sensor size really matters who cannot use the gear properly and don`t know anything about the physics of photography =============================================================================================================== PROS (or cons for larger sensors): - weight - size (tele side) - price (not for everything) - faster sensor readout >>> less rolling shutter more computational power for extra features or handling more data better IBIS (more to say: getting better IBIS easier)
- unconditional lighting: light amount is independent of the camera settings >>> you can use much larger aperture in low light without razor thin DOF (physics) AND you can use much lower ISO because you can open up your aperture more you gain ~2stops in aperture what you lose in noise performance (see CONS) - better heat performance - native 4:3 aspect ratio >>> subjective: like it or not objective: better for open gate CONS (or pros for larger sensors): - harder to get really thin DOF (if you are on the DOF bandwagon) - more noise on same high ISO level, BUT >>> see PROS unconditional lighting above not really that much of noise the digital noise is not that ugly in these modern cameras DO NOT try to make day from night (otherwise let dark to be dark) - less native resolution of the available sensors (if you are on the Megapixels bandwagon) BUT >>> if you calculate DPI / PPI and viewing angle properly you`ll realize that even 12 Mpixels is enough for large prints if you know how to compose, then you won`t have to crop much - less dynamic range - less support nowadays (because of the large sensor bandwagoners)
Aperture on an MFT is correct double the Aperture of a FF in relation to debt of field. Not in relation to light. So an MFT 1.4 lens let in as much as light as an FF 1.4 lens.
This is correct, but a full-frame sensor does gather more *total* light due to its larger area. This leads to lower total noise and therefore better low-light performance, I think mostly due to the fact that for a given resolution, the individual pixels would be physically larger, and have a larger “full-well capacity” of photons/electrons, which improves signal to noise ratio.
@@johngwheelersensor light gathering ability has many factors affecting its performance and could be the same for different size sensors but it has nothing to do with the amount of light a lens lets in.
Exactly Joost, so many people think "smaller sensor so less light", which is factually true but that doesn't mean you have to multiply the aperture by 2 as well.
As a very long time MFT user, Panasonic to be exact, I love micro 4/3. I recently purchased one of Panasonic full frame cameras, and I would like to respectfully disagree. Sensor size does matter if even just a little bit. There’s a major difference in depth of field control and low light capability. I think a more fitting title for this video should’ve been sensor size doesn’t matter as much as people make it sound. That having been said, your video is beautiful and I’m a proud new subscriber.
Sensor size only matters when it matters. Honestly I could get comparable results on any of the 3 major sensor size formats but each has their own unique strengths and weaknesses. For wildlife photography there isn't one sensor size that can achieve everything I want - they are all flawed in a few ways so I just chose what was less flawed for me.
Yeah agreed, sensor size does matter but not in a negative way, it matters in a way that they all have pros and cons and understanding them is key. I love my m4/3 for wildlife due to the shooting experience, which as more of a hobbiest wildlife photographer that is so much more important to me than the final image quality, which on M4/3 can still be stellar. I also love my M4/3 for more travel/ adventure photography. However for wedding and client work I stick to full frame because of the ease of use in uncontrollable lighting scenarios FF is just more versatile. I still occasionally use M4/3 for client work, such as when I do truck and car related videos as it has less rolling shutter than my 4/3 camera and sometimes Ff for personal work when I feel like that slight bump on image quality. They’re all have flaws and it’s using them in their best scenarios that’s the secret.
« If you are shooting at f4 you were effectively shooting at f8 on a full frame equivalent » : in fact, F4 is f4 on both systems. The equivalent is **only** about DOF. Light measuring remains the same.
The G9 II and GH7 are excellent. The lenses available are amazing and second hand can be very cheap. I have mainly primes (seven) with f1.7 and f1.8 apertures which I bought for an average of US$100. I got luck at an auction. But even at $200 they are a fraction of the cost new FF lenses.
Speaking about low light, I would like to shed some light on the "old" GH5s (basically a GH5 for low light). What still sets the GH5s apart from many other cameras (no matter if MFT or FF) is that it keeps its dynamic range across the full ISO range. Might be helpful for someone, who knows. Check out the review on digital camera world for more info.
Every single RUclipsr reviewing the G9ii/GH7: "M4/3 isn't dead, it's amazing, sensor size doesn't matter." Also every single RUclipsr reviewing the G9ii/GH7: "In the end, I'm sticking with the full frame S5ii/S5iix." I'm going to go with what people use instead of what they try to sell you. 😜
The deeper depth of field is an advantage in many situations. And one huge feature of micro 4/3 is the availability of the Lumix / Leica 10-25mm and 25-50mm f/1.7 zoom lenses. No other lenses for any format can match their capabilities.
I think the colors from the GH7 and G9II are better than the S5II, but not as good as the GH6. And about the GH7 feeling softer than the S5II, if the GH7 has the same image than the G9II, the GH7 has significantly better details than the S5II (at least in good light) with less edge sharpening. But you should shoot in 5,7k on the GH7 and 6k on the S5II only if you want the best image because in 4k, both cameras seem to have slightly lower resolution than 4K and slightly more sharpening.
I have a A7R5 that I use for social media content. I do like the idea of buying a S9 just for some stabilised clips. I'd love it if Panasonic put a M4/3 sensor in a S9 body just for the stabilisation. It wouldn't need to be full spec, as I only shoot 1080 vertical at 50 or 100 FPS. I'd definitely buy that just as a second camera. Your comments on gimbal are exactly my feelings, so anything that can get me a bit of smooth movement would be e big help.
Loved this. I went from GH4 & 5Dii (couldn’t decide so this was my “hybrid” setup to Sony A7S, currently and for last few years on a A7Riii. I still have a huge soft spot for LUMIX and the GH range, so I find myself thinking about heading back, but as I film either landscape/birdlife and then on the road musician stuff involving low light at times, I’m torn as whether to be sensible given my glass investment and stay with Sony or go LUMIX full frame or M43 with all the reacquisition that will entail. Nice problem to have, I suppose, given what you say about how great cameras are right now. Thanks for this video.
Sensor size has always mattered, whether or not a given person feel that isn't important or not to them, well that's an entirely different discussion. That hardly does not mean the GH7 isn't going to be a great camera for those that need what it delivers on.
@@michaelbell75 I know but smartphones usually have a ton of post processing and over sharpening. MFT cameras still have a much bigger sensor. Though, Apple Log can look pretty impressive.
I don't believe your presumption is accurate, in thinking GH7 would be inadequate for low light shooting, in environments where lighting control is impossible such as wedding events. The new Micro Four-thirds sensors are quite sensitive in low light compared to those from 5 years or more ago. I'm finding GH6 beautifully performing with truly negligible noise in this regard. Moreover, you'll get shockingly good handheld results with Lumix GH6, GH7 while filming a passing car or shooting real estate videos. Seriously -- with the appropriate settings [and perhaps with E-stabilization for additional steadiness (at the expense of some cropping) you could indeed get away with no use of a gimbal. Another advantage of MFT worthy of mentioning is GH6/GH7's huge array of professional ultra high bitrate CODEC options even up to 800MBPS easily provided the user, over comparably priced FF cameras -- and shooting video therewith, confidently with virtually no worry of overheating. Really decent video notwithstanding those little technical discrepancies. Subbed!
s5iix - full frame with better low light n better image quality but with shitty rolling shutter n crazy 1.5x cropping for 4k60 video, add e-stablization and u end up with 1.65 & 2.1x crop. Other than low light and image quality, GH7 wins in almost every aspect. GH7 is too big for a m43, personally i will be waiting for a full frame version of GH7.
Say this more often, so Panasonic could make MFT for 4000 USD and call it better than full frame.....say this often too so iPhone could charge 2000 USD for 1 inch sensor 😂😂😂😂
Sadly it does 😢 the saddest thing is that everyone stopped making mft lenses. Ff glass is also super affordable where some are even more affordable than mft glasses if you are going for something comparable in terms of fov and aperture 😊 also physics can't be hacked. Talking as a former mft user, i think if you are shooting a narrative, you can go with mft but if you shoot in all kinds of situations ff is the way. Even in your test, we can see how mft is more contrasty vs ff as we have less light in the shadows. Seriously the new s1h ii will be insane as it will surely have all these features
@user-tj8ox8iy8m Show me the evidence that sensor size doesn't matter to Roger Deakins, Netlfix, the Oscars, Arri and even the Palme d'Or. The fact that the most used sensor size is tiny and found in a smart phone is of no relevance whatsoever. Sensor size does matter and to say otherwise is nonsense. I never claimed you couldn't take a great pic with a tiny sensor but to say it doesn't matter is patent rubbish.
The sensor is different or at least modified to accommodate PDAF. Reviewers observe that: the colours out of the GH6 are more appealing (warmer mid tones); and the dynamic range and noise much better on the GH7 and G9II especially at lower ISOs as the dynamic boost is basically always ‘on’. The GH6 is still very good and if you don’t need PDAF then it can be had for a bargain in some countries as it is being priced to clear the remaining stock (about US$1200).
@@AllThingsFilm1 32 bit float works not without the DMW XLR2. True about the IBIS. IBIS has always been good since GH5 though. It just gets marginally better with each new release. I've used GH series cameras since the GH4, except the GH7.
@@D3AL1O Yes, we are talking about the GH7, which is built on a micro 4/3 matrix, which is 4 times smaller than the physical size of Full Frame and there can be no great dynamic range in principle, no matter what Panasonic engineers come up with, the laws of physics cannot be fooled. It is very strange that such simple things are not clear to you. I will formulate the thought this way: no one argues that the Panasonic GH7 is a wonderful micro 4/3 camera with many improvements. But this does not give reason to claim that the sensor size does not matter.
Your channel is one of the most serious, polite, comprehensive, ethical and aesthetic made one. Indeed, sensor size does NOT matter (marketing victims excluded). Proud user of Lumix cameras since 2008. Never looked back.
Sensor size never mattered, whoever thinks otherwise knows nothing about filmmaking and photography.
@@cineffect That's why people shouldn't buy system cameras (including GH7) and expensive lenses and settle for dubious quality smartphones. Lol
@@apostraffstudio I did not mean that. One does need proper lens and camera, but MFT is more than enough.
@@cineffect Then it would be correct to say that MFT is more than enough for you. Other users will prefer cameras with a larger sensor or limit themselves to the iPhone. But to categorically claim that the sensor size does not matter is not true and does not correspond to the situation that has developed in the camera market.
@@apostraffstudio For me it is true, I am shooting a feature film with Pen E-P7 at the moment and it's more than enough.
You just convinced me, after months of searching and scrutinizing every option, to get this camera.
What settings did you shoot the test footage in, prores or just h265?
We went through a lot of versions of MFT to get to the GH7. I’ve traded up since shooting multiple GH5 for Events. You are correct I moved to FF due to lowlight issues when shooting Weddings Venues. Once you move to Full Frame the MFT lens collection has to move with it. I wish I could buy the GH7 but it wouldn’t make sense with my Full Frame Investment.
I just commend LUMIX for having both tracks for us.
only those think sensor size really matters who cannot use the gear properly and don`t know anything about the physics of photography
===============================================================================================================
PROS (or cons for larger sensors):
- weight
- size (tele side)
- price (not for everything)
- faster sensor readout >>>
less rolling shutter
more computational power for extra features or handling more data
better IBIS (more to say: getting better IBIS easier)
- unconditional lighting: light amount is independent of the camera settings >>>
you can use much larger aperture in low light without razor thin DOF (physics) AND
you can use much lower ISO because you can open up your aperture more
you gain ~2stops in aperture what you lose in noise performance (see CONS)
- better heat performance
- native 4:3 aspect ratio >>>
subjective: like it or not
objective: better for open gate
CONS (or pros for larger sensors):
- harder to get really thin DOF (if you are on the DOF bandwagon)
- more noise on same high ISO level, BUT >>>
see PROS unconditional lighting above
not really that much of noise
the digital noise is not that ugly in these modern cameras
DO NOT try to make day from night (otherwise let dark to be dark)
- less native resolution of the available sensors (if you are on the Megapixels bandwagon) BUT >>>
if you calculate DPI / PPI and viewing angle properly you`ll realize that even 12 Mpixels is enough for large prints
if you know how to compose, then you won`t have to crop much
- less dynamic range
- less support nowadays (because of the large sensor bandwagoners)
Amen ❤
Aperture on an MFT is correct double the Aperture of a FF in relation to debt of field. Not in relation to light. So an MFT 1.4 lens let in as much as light as an FF 1.4 lens.
This is correct, but a full-frame sensor does gather more *total* light due to its larger area. This leads to lower total noise and therefore better low-light performance, I think mostly due to the fact that for a given resolution, the individual pixels would be physically larger, and have a larger “full-well capacity” of photons/electrons, which improves signal to noise ratio.
Correct
@@johngwheelersensor light gathering ability has many factors affecting its performance and could be the same for different size sensors but it has nothing to do with the amount of light a lens lets in.
Exactly Joost, so many people think "smaller sensor so less light", which is factually true but that doesn't mean you have to multiply the aperture by 2 as well.
As a very long time MFT user, Panasonic to be exact, I love micro 4/3. I recently purchased one of Panasonic full frame cameras, and I would like to respectfully disagree. Sensor size does matter if even just a little bit. There’s a major difference in depth of field control and low light capability. I think a more fitting title for this video should’ve been sensor size doesn’t matter as much as people make it sound. That having been said, your video is beautiful and I’m a proud new subscriber.
Sensor size only matters when it matters. Honestly I could get comparable results on any of the 3 major sensor size formats but each has their own unique strengths and weaknesses. For wildlife photography there isn't one sensor size that can achieve everything I want - they are all flawed in a few ways so I just chose what was less flawed for me.
Yeah agreed, sensor size does matter but not in a negative way, it matters in a way that they all have pros and cons and understanding them is key.
I love my m4/3 for wildlife due to the shooting experience, which as more of a hobbiest wildlife photographer that is so much more important to me than the final image quality, which on M4/3 can still be stellar. I also love my M4/3 for more travel/ adventure photography.
However for wedding and client work I stick to full frame because of the ease of use in uncontrollable lighting scenarios FF is just more versatile.
I still occasionally use M4/3 for client work, such as when I do truck and car related videos as it has less rolling shutter than my 4/3 camera and sometimes Ff for personal work when I feel like that slight bump on image quality.
They’re all have flaws and it’s using them in their best scenarios that’s the secret.
« If you are shooting at f4 you were effectively shooting at f8 on a full frame equivalent » : in fact, F4 is f4 on both systems. The equivalent is **only** about DOF. Light measuring remains the same.
The G9 II and GH7 are excellent. The lenses available are amazing and second hand can be very cheap. I have mainly primes (seven) with f1.7 and f1.8 apertures which I bought for an average of US$100. I got luck at an auction. But even at $200 they are a fraction of the cost new FF lenses.
Speaking about low light, I would like to shed some light on the "old" GH5s (basically a GH5 for low light). What still sets the GH5s apart from many other cameras (no matter if MFT or FF) is that it keeps its dynamic range across the full ISO range. Might be helpful for someone, who knows. Check out the review on digital camera world for more info.
GREAT Video! Are you going to give up your full-frame for M43 or going to add M43 to your collection?
Every single RUclipsr reviewing the G9ii/GH7: "M4/3 isn't dead, it's amazing, sensor size doesn't matter."
Also every single RUclipsr reviewing the G9ii/GH7: "In the end, I'm sticking with the full frame S5ii/S5iix."
I'm going to go with what people use instead of what they try to sell you. 😜
The deeper depth of field is an advantage in many situations. And one huge feature of micro 4/3 is the availability of the Lumix / Leica 10-25mm and 25-50mm f/1.7 zoom lenses. No other lenses for any format can match their capabilities.
lovely colours in the video, what lens where you using? i really enjoyed the flares it created looking into the sun
I think the colors from the GH7 and G9II are better than the S5II, but not as good as the GH6. And about the GH7 feeling softer than the S5II, if the GH7 has the same image than the G9II, the GH7 has significantly better details than the S5II (at least in good light) with less edge sharpening. But you should shoot in 5,7k on the GH7 and 6k on the S5II only if you want the best image because in 4k, both cameras seem to have slightly lower resolution than 4K and slightly more sharpening.
I have a A7R5 that I use for social media content. I do like the idea of buying a S9 just for some stabilised clips. I'd love it if Panasonic put a M4/3 sensor in a S9 body just for the stabilisation. It wouldn't need to be full spec, as I only shoot 1080 vertical at 50 or 100 FPS. I'd definitely buy that just as a second camera.
Your comments on gimbal are exactly my feelings, so anything that can get me a bit of smooth movement would be e big help.
Think of all the features the S9 could have with an MFT sensor. 🦾
@@CineBrew I'm pretty sure theyll do a mini GH7 in a S9 body, that would be cool, with a compact zoom
Loved this. I went from GH4 & 5Dii (couldn’t decide so this was my “hybrid” setup to Sony A7S, currently and for last few years on a A7Riii. I still have a huge soft spot for LUMIX and the GH range, so I find myself thinking about heading back, but as I film either landscape/birdlife and then on the road musician stuff involving low light at times, I’m torn as whether to be sensible given my glass investment and stay with Sony or go LUMIX full frame or M43 with all the reacquisition that will entail. Nice problem to have, I suppose, given what you say about how great cameras are right now. Thanks for this video.
for that 24mm test - why not use the m43 12mm F1.4? model H-X012
Sensor size has always mattered, whether or not a given person feel that isn't important or not to them, well that's an entirely different discussion. That hardly does not mean the GH7 isn't going to be a great camera for those that need what it delivers on.
If that were true, everyone would be shooting medium format. "Full frame" is absolutely tiny in comparison....
Great video, awesome presentation
are ppl STILL arguing that a m43 sensor is too small? then get a medium format camera!
8 mm is really « insanely wide ». 8mm is 8mm. But the « angle of view » is 16 mm 24x36 equivalent. Focal length remains 8mm
It does matter ! Period!
You are shooting medium format then right? I can already hear the excuses why youre not. But sensor size matters, period!
lumix sent me this camera - suddenly the rest of the video fades to white noise as we know its not going to be an objective perspective. womp womp
Yes. It. Does.
😅
You are shooting medium format then right? If not, then you are wrong.
use your iphone or android phone then. No need to work for panasonic.
Yeah let's compare a mirror-less camera to a phone, brain dead take.
@@D3AL1O you keep playing your video games kiddo
@@D3AL1O A smartphone literally IS a mirrorless camera lol
@@michaelbell75 I know but smartphones usually have a ton of post processing and over sharpening. MFT cameras still have a much bigger sensor. Though, Apple Log can look pretty impressive.
It matters
Then I assume you are shooting medium format right?
I don't believe your presumption is accurate, in thinking GH7 would be inadequate for low light shooting, in environments where lighting control is impossible such as wedding events.
The new Micro Four-thirds sensors are quite sensitive in low light compared to those from 5 years or more ago.
I'm finding GH6 beautifully performing with truly negligible noise in this regard.
Moreover, you'll get shockingly good handheld results with Lumix GH6, GH7 while filming a passing car or shooting real estate videos. Seriously -- with the appropriate settings [and perhaps with E-stabilization for additional steadiness (at the expense of some cropping) you could indeed get away with no use of a gimbal.
Another advantage of MFT worthy of mentioning is GH6/GH7's huge array of professional ultra high bitrate CODEC options even up to 800MBPS easily provided the user, over comparably priced FF cameras -- and shooting video therewith, confidently with virtually no worry of overheating.
Really decent video notwithstanding those little technical discrepancies. Subbed!
s5iix - full frame with better low light n better image quality but with shitty rolling shutter n crazy 1.5x cropping for 4k60 video, add e-stablization and u end up with 1.65 & 2.1x crop. Other than low light and image quality, GH7 wins in almost every aspect. GH7 is too big for a m43, personally i will be waiting for a full frame version of GH7.
Say this more often, so Panasonic could make MFT for 4000 USD and call it better than full frame.....say this often too so iPhone could charge 2000 USD for 1 inch sensor 😂😂😂😂
Nice vid tho
Until Netflix approve GH7.
Sadly it does 😢 the saddest thing is that everyone stopped making mft lenses. Ff glass is also super affordable where some are even more affordable than mft glasses if you are going for something comparable in terms of fov and aperture 😊 also physics can't be hacked. Talking as a former mft user, i think if you are shooting a narrative, you can go with mft but if you shoot in all kinds of situations ff is the way. Even in your test, we can see how mft is more contrasty vs ff as we have less light in the shadows. Seriously the new s1h ii will be insane as it will surely have all these features
@user-tj8ox8iy8mSo many times repeating the same reply.
If you truly believe that, you should be shooting medium format. "Full frame" is tiny in comparison.
No. It's matter
If sensor size didn't matter you'd never need anything more than your phone. Clickbait shit...
@user-tj8ox8iy8m Show me the evidence that sensor size doesn't matter to Roger Deakins, Netlfix, the Oscars, Arri and even the Palme d'Or. The fact that the most used sensor size is tiny and found in a smart phone is of no relevance whatsoever. Sensor size does matter and to say otherwise is nonsense. I never claimed you couldn't take a great pic with a tiny sensor but to say it doesn't matter is patent rubbish.
@user-tj8ox8iy8m what the hell have any of your arguments got to do with your statement that 'sensor size doesn't matter'? Lol
@user-tj8ox8iy8m LOL
@@MikeKleinsteuber You are shooting medium format then right? You better be if you are that convinced sensor size matters that much....
@@michaelbell75 Sure. Fuji GFX 50S
First 🎉😜
Legend! 🤩
It's basically a GH6 with PDAF.
No, because the GH7 can record 32-bit audio internally, and has improved IBIS.
The sensor is different or at least modified to accommodate PDAF. Reviewers observe that: the colours out of the GH6 are more appealing (warmer mid tones); and the dynamic range and noise much better on the GH7 and G9II especially at lower ISOs as the dynamic boost is basically always ‘on’. The GH6 is still very good and if you don’t need PDAF then it can be had for a bargain in some countries as it is being priced to clear the remaining stock (about US$1200).
@@AllThingsFilm1 32 bit float works not without the DMW XLR2. True about the IBIS. IBIS has always been good since GH5 though. It just gets marginally better with each new release. I've used GH series cameras since the GH4, except the GH7.
@@Democratiser True.
It's more a G9II with Proresraw and a fan. Most people will prefer the G9II for the size, weight and price.
Nope and Nope
Sensor size DOESN'T MATTER, are you serious? You probably skipped physics classes at school if you allow such unreasonable statements to be made.
It really doesn’t matter for video.
@@D3AL1O You are mistaken. Dynamic range is important for both photos and videos.
@@apostraffstudio We’re talking about the GH7 which has great dynamic range. Not all crop sensors are created equal.
@@D3AL1O Yes, we are talking about the GH7, which is built on a micro 4/3 matrix, which is 4 times smaller than the physical size of Full Frame and there can be no great dynamic range in principle, no matter what Panasonic engineers come up with, the laws of physics cannot be fooled. It is very strange that such simple things are not clear to you.
I will formulate the thought this way: no one argues that the Panasonic GH7 is a wonderful micro 4/3 camera with many improvements. But this does not give reason to claim that the sensor size does not matter.
Ok, you are shooting medium format then right? If not, you skipped physics classes at school lol