WOW…. you nailed it perfectly!!! The right tool for the right job ….I own two full frame and one Olympus m4/3 camera. If I’m shooting in difficult lighting or need the best quality, the full frame is the tool of choice here. If portability is the main concern…. street photography, hiking, family pictures etc and you’re looking for the best quality to size ratio then you can’t beat m4/3’s. The best camera is the one you have with you and the extra portability of the m4/3’s is a real help. But the bottom line is this…..cameras don’t take pictures….people do.
I agree.. I obviously don't mind taking my Canon FF gear to weddings, or any other paid job.. but for just wanting to take a camera out hiking my fujifilm xt2 and 35 f2 for example is awesome!! I usually don't even touch my canon stuff unless its for actual work. I Do kinda want the G9 though, w/ that little 15mm f1.7 :]
come on? Is there any difference in terms of portability between panasonic g9/gh4, g85 and sony A7 or A7ii? yes, actually the full frame a7 is smaller. it's not an argument for me. Where m43 shines is professional vlogging, you get amazing video quality with 4K 60fps, 10bit, and the best image stabilization + flip out screen. Thats it.
over a6500? don't think so.. :) + its true a mid range zoom for a7 will be much bigger, however there are lot of nice small lenses, like the 35mm 2,8 or 28mm f2, 50 1.8.. beat this with m43 lenses.. olympus 25mm f/1.2? you get 50mm f/2.4 right? and it is not small
At the moment, MFT is right for me, because of those reasons: - all mirrorless - flipout screens - OIS is incredible - 4K 60fps with G9/GH5/GH5s - 200-600mm equivalent reach with just 520g weight (Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm) - this all at a rather affordable price - I don't care for super huge bokeh. - Dynamic Range and Low Light are not an issue for landscapes, because of bracketing. Of course, as soon as there's shadow on the bird, you get a problem with noise or motion blur (for bird-movement only, OIS takes care of hand-shake). But that's a tradeoff I am willing to make. Fullframe is heavy and really expensive, if you want to get that close. However APS-C is also very interesting. You can also get 600mm equivalent reach with about 1kg lenses for reasonable prices.
just subscribed, ... i agree with Photo-Me-Ike. Loved this video. For Street & "Carry-around everywhere" use, which is a better camera overall, EM10iii versus GX9 ? Panasonic is a Rangefinder-style body having only 2 Dials (two-in-one) on Top. Olympus has an EVF in center like Dslrs/Sony, and many more Dials. I like them both and would like to own both, but one at a time, so, which one first ? .... i am slightly tilting in favor of OLY
Same here. I switched from an a6300 to a Lumix G85 and I really love it. Only downside for me is the slower autofocus but the quality and the IBIS is really good.
I don't like the a6xxx Argo it's just too much small for my big hands. Personally, I hope Sony will do what Fuji did with the xt2 and xh1, so people can still buy the small body and others can buy the bigger one.
user experience? I think ergonomics of a6500 is amazing! I also use Fuji XT-2 and I really don't like its ergonomics. Cześć Emil! Unfortunately I can't afford A7iii, it would be the perfect choice for me. The video capabilities of a6500 are satisfying, but I am not happy with the picture quality and the lenses.. Even with sigma 16mm 1.4 and 30mm 1.4 which I bought recently, for video there are amazing, however for Bokeh... @ 1.4 you get a lot of chromatic aberration, and then if you stop down.. you loose bokeh. I think only full frame matters. A7iii is not that bad in terms of price, but the sony lenses choice sucks.. on one hand you have the GM's and Zeiss which are super expensive and on other hand garbage like 50mm 1.8, plastic made in china. Where in canon you have so many options from top quality L 1.2 glasses, through great quality and decent price 50mm 1.4 and 35mm f2 to super cheap ang leightweight 50mm 1.8.. This is the thing! So to sum up.. I don't know what to do :) I'm thinking if there is a sense to switch to Fuji XT-3 cause, in terms of video, it looks wow, and I already have some nice glasses in my family, like 10-24mm, 18-55mm, 55-200mm.. but don't like ergonomics that much.
Talking about fast zooms: nowadays there’s Panasonic 10-25/1.7 is available, which seems to be pretty awesome in terms of the range, aperture and picture quality.
you got some info wrong: f2.8 on m43 provides same depth of field as f4.0 on full frame, and both still gather the same amount of light per unit of area (sqmm, sqin, etc) meaning that for a given field of view, the light is identical... the t-stop is different, but non-cine lenses/cameras don't typically care about that.
Just wanted to say that this is one of the most helpful and balanced videos I've seen on the topic. Well done! I just bought a GH5 (upgrading from a T6i) and am going back and forth on whether I should keep it or choose the a7iii instead. Really love the bokeh of full frame and low light performance, but the lack of flip screen on the Sony and stronger video settings on the GH5 are compelling. Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for a great video and channel. Keep it up!
I like your analysis. After about 10 years, I have given up APS-C and gone to a G9, GX7 and Canon 5D III. I used mostly FF lenses on a 77D, which didn't give it much of a size advantage over the 5D III, and when I bought the G9 I like the IQ better than the 77D! And I love the tiny overall size of an MFT kit. There are not many FF lenses that are as good as or better than the pro-level MFT lenses as well.
The most concrete and technical summary about pros and cons for m43 vs full-frame that you can find on the Internet. To the point and without fanboying. Great job ... waiting for more content like this!
I love that you mentioned “theoretically vs real life” a lot. I feel like these types of comparisons get bogged down when people get off of real world applications and argue about math and test charts.
Finally, a level-headed video on sensor sizes. My vote is for MFT because it's by far the best balance between large and small sensors. If you're being paid to shoot portraits, you will probably prefer full-frame. If you're shooting video, there are huge advantages to smaller sensors that make them more useful. The BMPCC 4K is a highly anticipated and recently released MFT camera designed exclusively for professional video work; Blackmagic did not choose MFT for no reason. Camcorders have sensors on par with point-and-shoot cameras because the advantages of smaller sensors are very compelling for video-only devices. All that said, there are some video advantages to APS-C and FF systems, particularly in the shallow depth of field department. It's important to fully understand your tools and choose the right one. In the end, the old truism stands: a good craftsman blames himself; only a poor craftsman blames his tools.
We're getting to a point that it really hardly matters from a sensor performance perspective. There have been great breakthroughs throughout the years. A GH4 you wouldn't even think of using over ISO800, but the new GH5S blows it away. You used to have very constrasty looks with blownout skies, now we have quite some dynamic range and recoverable highlights with V-LOG L and HLG. The leaps each generation makes is astonishing. I do not need a camera that does ISO1638400. A clean ISO6400/12800 comes a long way. So, for me sensor performance itself isn't an argument anymore. It is true that with larger sensor cameras you have it easier with the options of going wide. Depth of field naturally is shallower as well for the same f-stop. But shallow depth of field was never a standard. People nowadays just set their lens wide open and shoot. That's great and all, but you might want to give your subject some context, some environment. That's the real photography, if you can pull that off. Really think about your subject in relation to its surroundings. Composition. Et cetera. Besides there are enough lenses for MFT that are plenty sensitive and blur backgrounds just as well. Some gorgeous f/0.95-f/1.8 options out there. And my favourite thing about MFT: you can keep the lenses small, e.g. use the petit Leica 15mm f/1.7. Pair it with a GX80/85 and you're shooting with something the footprint of the LX100 premium compact camera. That's another thing I like about MFT... all the body options. There's something for all types, sizes and budgets. With Sony APS-C you have one A6x00 camera per generation. And Sony hasn't been developing compact lenses specific to the APS-C sensor for years. It does focus on keeping the body tiny... with only leads to problems with ergonomics, practical solutions and features and issues like overheating. Their A7III seems a supergreat camera, tremendous value. But I couldn't take a fullframe system because I'd need to go get and use fullframe lenses, which are bulky and expensive. I think APS-C is the sweetspot, right between the compactness of MFT and the performance of fullframe. But... as I said, I find Sony's A6x00 and APS-C lens line-up a joke... the same I think of Canon's EOS-M system, which is greatly crippled as to not adversely affect high-end camera sales. I do have a Nikon D5300, but I do not use it much, as I absolutely dislike the traditional DSLR experience and unfortunately they don't have a mirrorless system out. But, with MFT catching up in performance, I think it's a solid choice to stick with it. You get all the body and lens choices. Are able to keep things compact. And they have some of the best features and value out there. The E-M1 Mark II and GH5S flagships all have vari-angle touchscreens, dual cardslots, great batterylife, amazing IBIS, audio interfaces et cetera. I can't fault these camera bodies. Whereas with the other systems I always find something to dislike. We could definitely do with better dynamic range as well as improved autofocus performance (think Panasonic betting on their Depth-From-Defocus horse was the wrong move; they need to acknowledge they made a mistake with that and go with something hybrid pixel sensor level phase detect), but to me it's still the best compromise. While at the end, all cameras are a compromise and there isn't really one definit winner. There's only the best compromise for how one shoots and that varies from one person to the next. So... there's no need for battles over which camera is the best. Just find one that suits you and enjoy it! Fanboyism out of the window!
I agree. If APS-C had similar options as MFT, it would probably be a great choice. That being said, the more time passes by, the less important low light performance will be. MFT is already very usable in most conditions ... in some years, it will be there, where FF is now. Of course FF will be much better by then as well ... and better is always better. But when good is already good enough, you don't need better. I also don't understand this hype around super blurry backgrounds. Often I would even prefer less, but then you usually get those ugly corners in the bokeh, when you stop down. So less blurr of MFT lenses can also be a benefit.
APS-C is probably the sweetspot between the both. But I feel like both Sony and Canon fail to provide an attractive APS-C mirrorless system as a whole. I have always liked Nikon in terms of value and results. But the traditional DSLR approach really bothered me with my D5300. Nikon however would be the prime candidate for APS-C mirrorless. Hope they'll do that. Otherwise still going to be happy with MFT. I do get the advantage of the FF/MF systems, but I don't want to run another lens collection, I already have so many and to be honest I can make 4/3" sensor performance work for me. Just requires a little more from the person behind the camera. Which, might not be a bad thing.
GH5s is a specific case, it sacrifices the resolution and low native ISO for the low light, so it is suitable for advanced production, but probably not for average filmmaker. Shallow depth of field IMO was and is a standard, especially when big movies used be be shot on 65 / 70mm film which is now making a comeback thanks to ARRI's 65mm sensor. There definitely is something appealing about separating the subject as a way of putting emphasis on the subject which gives you creative options for storytelling.
I love using both MFT and APS-C cameras! I think, MFT is "best used" with small and fast primes! At least, that´s my favorite way of using it. This gives me the opportunity to reap many of the benefits of this system: small, light, unobtrusive, IS even with those small and fast primes (2 factors that enable me to use low ISO) and good image quality. And a lot of those cameras look pretty stylish as well!
Well said Totally agree You also forgot to mention the natural advantage m43 has for macro as well. More dof. Close shot for the crop factor. High res mode. Better stabilization. Really the best system for macro imo.
Thank you, M43 is indeed very suitable for macro, although the high-res mode and IS are advantages of specific cameras, not necessarily the whole system.
Better depth of field? Do you mean shallower? At given aperture the DoF is always the same with the same sensor size and shallower with larger sensor, there is not way to make it better or worse.
I was hesitant in the beginning as the intro was a little more than needed IMO. Then there was; No distracting music, direct and to the point, unbiased opinions and honest usability. This is The Best take down on image sensor format I've found. ~subbed!!!
I used to use the APSC format, but my issue with it became that it was hard to get your "classic" focal length primes on it (28, 35, 40, 50 70,135 etc.) because of the crop factor. It seems there are very few lenses actually designed for APSC. They are all just FF designs and focal lengths from the 35mm era stuck on a smaller sensor with a 1.5 crop factor to deal with. It was frustrating to try and find a fast prime with a field of view that felt "natural" to me. The one exception to this is Fuji. They have unique focal lengths that are designed for a crop sensor. I switched to M43 for this reason. All their lenses focal lengths are half the FF equivalent and designed specifically for the 2x crop factor. I also just love the smaller form factor as I am more likely to take it with me out and about and can be more discreet when shooting. I like how straightforward and unbiased this was. It is true that you have to find the format that fits your situation. For me that happens to be M43.
I don't think they're going to develop new compact APS-C lenses. They haven't for years. So, with that said. Who would buy another A6x00 with the A7III priced so competitively. The newest E-mount lenses are FF anyways and the larger body has better ergonomics, ports/features and generally less likely to hit issues such as overheating. I can only see it work if they bring back the A5x00 series that's around 500~750 bucks to have a budget mirrorless APS-C option. I would love to see Nikon go mirrorless APS-C. Their D5x00 line-up is great, but I hate the traditional DSLR experience. That sort of camera mirrorless would be a winner.
The full frame lenses are expensives and heavy... Every body don't want to have a heavy bag... The next APSC model will not sale if they don't make a effort for the APSC users... PS : I want a fast zoom from Sony or Sigma... (16-50 or 16-70 F2.8).
Hey Hybrid. I'm already following you for a long time and I have to say: your content is great. Really honest and no bias at all. You've convinced me to buy a G80/G85 and I still watch your tutorials on that camera. You deserve way more subscribers.
Forgive me if im wrong, and this was under the limited informations available on the subject, But crop factor has no effect on the T-stop (Light transmission) of a lens only the F-stop. So essentially the only thing effecting low light capability is the sensor. Many of the mft primes such as the lumix 25 f1.7 were marked at a t-stop of 2 on dxo mark which is the same as many other full frame lenses of the same f-stop. Given a full frame and mft camera were put against each other, they should perform similarly when the crop is accounted for on the mft (if at 100 iso on the full frame, put at 400 iso on mft) in a low light test, if of course focal length, megapixel, and t-stop value is the same.
No, that is not correct. T-stops are just more accurate reading of how much light actually gets through the lens, but t-stops are affected by crop the way same as F-stops. You need to multiply the T-stops the same way as F-stops to find out the equivalent depth of field and how much light gets to the sensor in comparison with full frame.
T-stops are a constant though, the t-stop ranking given by dxo mark does not change based on the system the lens is deigned for, the entire reason the measurement was created was to have a constant measurement of light transmission compared to other lenses. other information ive found has also stated that crop factor has no effect on T-stop.
The F-stop are constant as well, it is just the size of the front element divided by the iris opening, so F2.8 is still F2.8 regardless of weather it is on FF or M43. It is just *full frame equivalent* that is different on FF and M43 and there you need multiply it. T-stops work the same way as F-stops, T-tops just take into account optical construction of each lens.
Bought my first "real" camera two years ago and after considering all the angles(or so I thought), I decided on m43 in the form of a Panasonic G7. Well, now that I know a lot more, I think I got lucky and made the right choice. I've since upgraded to a G85 and a GH5 and a couple of gimbals, a Sigma 16mm, a Lumix 25mm and 42.5mm, and a Laowa 7.5mm. I can shoot gorgeous 4k all day long without heat issues and even though I still have a lot to learn, this stable of cameras is not a limitation for me. And you add everything together, and I've got about as much invested in the whole kit as I'd have with a Sony FF and a kit lens.
I actually use both my A7iii and G85 in a very similar way as you do. Hands down if I ever have to do any recording beyond 25 minutes continuously or in a warm or hot condition, I will always reach for my G85.
An exceptional summary, clear and easy to follow with great images. One factor I’m not sure you mentioned, and the main reason I’m a M4/3 fan - cost. I would love to have a full frame - and maybe I will some day, but I think I got more bang for my buck when considering the lenses.
Thank you, I can't say, that M43 is generally cheaper, especially if you want lenses that can do what FF counterparts can do, they are often much more expensive.
The best comparison so far. Those who say sensor size does not affect depth of field is assuming same focal length and aperture, but in reality, the shooter creates the same framing of the picture, not the same focal length, so this "theoretically correct" statement is completely useless. I would've loved a more in-depth analysis of video. The aps-c/MFT advantage in video derives from what? sensor stablization? less heat? lower resolution?
Good overview on pros and cons of MFT and APS-C vs FF. One thing not mentioned is the secret weapon of both MFT and APS-C: speedboosters. A speedboosted f2.8 FF zoom is a dream come true, equivalent to a 40% wider f2 lens. It totally eliminates the drawbacks of a cropped sensor while significantly improving the image quality of the FF lens. Even without a speedbooster, a plain MFT or APS-C adapter uses only the central rectangle of a FF lens, eliminating the softness and vignetting at the edges of the lens.
Thank you, although I don't think that option to use speedboosters is advantage specific to crop sensors, you can you speedbooster and medium format lenses of full frame as well. It also adds weight, size, cost and messes with autofocus. Crop lenses only use central part of the lens, but they also have higher pixels density, as I explained in this video, so FF usually has higher perceived resolution.
I've never heard of a speedbooster for using medium format lenses on a FF camera. Is such a thing available for Nikon or Canon cameras? On MFT and APS-C, speedboosters aren't any bulkier than a plain adapter, but cost and auto-focus limitations are indeed drawbacks.
I thought I found a loophole for m4/3. I bought the Mitakon 25mm F0.95 lens with the G85. Figured that would give me the most feature rich full frame looking camera for the price. It has worked out pretty well, but at f0.95 it's not that sharp and looks better at f1.4, so my advantage shrunk from f1.9 equiv to f2.8. That plus the colors aren't very good on the lens, and the annoyance of having to manual focus on myself from a distance is a pain lol. I still get a respectable look for video, but I realize how much easier filming myself would be with a full frame camera with good auto focus. I'm just waiting on something like the 6D II with a flip out screen, but better quality video. If the Sony a6700 has a flip out screen, I'd consider upgrading to that, but I do want a full frame camera still. We'll see what Canon's mirrorless or the a7s III has in store ;)
I loved this lens on my G85 and love it even more on my G9. It is better suited as a video lens IMO, as the aberrations and lack of sharpness off-center is noticeable for stills.
With an Olympus f1.2 prime, you'll have decent shallow depth of field, autofocus, and very sharp images wide open. The downsides are price, size and not quite as shallow DoF as a f2 lens on full frame. But really, you may be okay with that, given the advantages.
Honestly, I don't get Olympus Pro lenses, for the price of one Olympus Pro lens, you can have older full frame camera with F1.8 prime that will give shallower depth of field and similar or better IQ because of lower pixel density.
I agree with some of your other viewers- this is one of your best videos, yet! Such a clear and well reasoned ( and balanced) discussion on the different sensors. Quite illuminating - if you will pardon the pun! Thanks for doing this.
Great, very reasonable and balanced overview! Actually one of the best on the topic that I happened to come across. It would be worth mentioning Speed Boosters for the sake of completeness. These can cost as much as a lens, but can help getting nearly a full frame look even with M43 (as close as one can possibly get). Of course with all the hassle around it (lagging AF or in fact mostly manual focus, corner softness, chromatic aberrations).
Thank you, the speedbosters are separate topic, I will make a video about those in the future, but you can also get speedboosters for full frame cameras and use medium format lenses, so I wouldn't say that the possibility of using speedbooster is an advantage of sensors smaller than full frame.
Nice review as always - thanks - both cameras are great - m43 will make a lighter kit - and cost of G9 kit will be cheaper as Sony lenses are expensive - I have M43 and APS-C and FF - the ergo on the G9 is just awesome - and great Touch LCD interface and nice menu system and awesome IBIS - but yes I love my Fuji XT2's as well and Sony A7 III - and also my many 1 inch cameras - including the Sony RX10 m4 - with 24-600mm range - try that in FF :) - so yes a 1 inch sensor is needed - For street shooting I tend to use my M43 cameras more - and my Fuji Xt2's - only at night would I consider taking the A7 m3 - but only if I am shooting color and trying to have as little grain as possible - but at night I often shoot BW so grain not an issue - so a light kit is welcome - would like to see Fuji include IBIS in their XT3/4/5 body - which I guess will not happen - rumor says no IBIS in XT3 - and X-H1 is just to bulky for street shooting - so m43 is ideal - both Panasonic and Fuji have very nice BW modes - FF sure has its place as well - Sony seems to want to phase out their APS-C bodies - yes they are producing new bodies but very very few lenses - Pentax Sony Fuji Panasonic Canon Nikon Olympus all have nice cameras for the most part - and there is no perfect camera - as there are various needs - Interesting though to see how Sony and Fuji have really diehard Fanboys :) there are more old faithfuls of Nikon and Canon but not as fanatic :) Fuji has more of a Puritans, that hate Touch and IBIS etc - Sony Fanboys sometimes forget that Nikon and Panasonic and even Canon and Fuji that use Sony sensors :)
There are no f/0.95 lenses for Sony's FE-Mount. Well, there was at least one, the Mitakon Speedmaster 50mm, but the actual result was about a T/1.4. And so far, no one's made an automatic f/0.95 lens. Even Nikon's announced $6,500 f/0.95 for the Z system is slated to be manual. Support of a real f/0.95 lens was Nikon's big argument for going to a 55mm flange size.
Hello. I have recently tridepos Panasonic g90 as well as Sony A7 II. The later give me a wonderful image quality but felt very old. The other camera give me that kind of flat images. Still a more modern camera. Not sure which way to go.. there is also a lot of mirrorless aps-c cameras. What would you get today?
Most of the disadvantages of the micro system can be overcome by practical means except dynamic range it seems to me. Or has your experience overcome this issue or have you got close enough so as not to notice ? As always love your videos always good and for me ballanced options . I suppose I'm a fan boy of people who know what they are doing. Thank you.
Now it is actually the full frame that overcame all of the practical disadvantages. The main disadvantage of M43 that can't be overcome is high pixel density, which puts extremely high requirements on optical design and limits perceived detail.
Thanks for this review, so clear and easy to understand. When I bought into the M43 system I was aware of the depth of field implications compared to full frame, however was not aware of the differences of total light gathered and how that might impact image noise. You mention this around the 3:20 mark in your video and also go onto say that the increased base ISO of 200 on the 20mp M43 sensors goes some way to mitigating this. If you ever had the time, would be great if you could go into this in a little more depth. Also, would the dual ISO capability of the newer M43 cameras largely erode this total light gathering advantage the Full Frame sensors have?
You're welcome, ISO 200 just increases noise in comparison with ISO 100 and it you need to use faster shutter speed and more dense ND filters. Dula ISO won't help much, because new BSI full frame sensors have more multiple base ISO settings that are being switched automatically.
I have done an odd experiment with 6D, SL2 Canon and MFT Lumix - where I am shooting close-ups and trying to evaluate how sharp the lens or sensors are - my comparison is based on me shooting FILM for many many years - and I am not impressed with digital sharpness. I've tried using autofocus as well as manual - and nothing compares to slide or color negative film sharpness - IMHO. AM I imagining things or is this also a complaint with everyone. I have used prime lenses, zooms, Canon, Tamron, Sigman lenses - and nothing is as sharp as film. I will say that out of the 3 cameras - the 6D produces sharper images than the SL2 or MFT. Any feedback is welcomed.
Hi, I’m looking for a mirrorless camera and my budget is between 700 and 900 €. I like photography and video making and I was searching a camera for both photos and video. I already have a Nikon D90 and I was interested in a MFT camera (g80?) but I’m not sure. I’m not a professional photographer but I am improving my capabilities... is that a good choice? Thank you for your videos, are well recorded, edited and commented 😄
If I was using the Oly with a 300MM lens for a 600MM field of view, is there any way to also get the bokeh that comes with a longer focal length 600MM lens? When tracking a distant subject like a race car or footballer - or my nephews in a crowd - I often need separation from an ugly or distracting background. Maybe a bokeh art filter? I think the image processing in smartphones now commonly generates artificial bokeh or maybe a gaussian blur.
I enjoy just about all kinds of photography and I agree, APS-C and micro 4/3 seem to be underrated, at least compared to full frame. I guess that APS-C and micro 4/3 is better in some sense for astronomy and microscopy, since you can get a higher crop factor. I have found it seems that many photographers who want to delve into extreme macro prefer APS-C over Full Frame. Sure, Full frame can have better dynamic range, but I think that the benefits of smaller sensors need to be discussed or thought about more. My dream is to have a very small camera (like a Sony RX100) with at least a micro 4/3 sensor and have it have the features that a Gopro has, and be based on apps. Samsung once made great app-based cameras, and it's sad that they have quit on cameras.
The "light gathering" advantage of FF is a misnomer. For example f/1.2 on FF vs MFT vs APSc is the same exposure triangle for all systems. Likewise the often bandied "equivalence" is also a misleading. In many (most?) situations, you will be shooting at mid-apertures or focused near infinity to maximize DOF.
No, it isn't. You will get the same exposure with same setting, but only because the ISO compensating for that (there is noise difference). Actual light gathering is different.
@@TheHybridShooter Of course it's different; the light cone emerging from a FF lens is spread across an area four times an MFT sensor. The light per unit area is effectively the same, which is why the exposure triangle is the same for both. Now go take some photos. PS: The fact that a speedbooster concentrates the light cone from a FF lens thus effectively increasing the aperture number demonstrates my point.
PLs can you tell your opinion about Panasonic g80 in comparison with fuji xt20. Most use is youtube videos and photo of my family. What to choose? Thanks for answer.
Since the Fuji. XT3 is only 1,300$ now , should I get that or the A7III for hybrid shooting? Things like documentaries, interviews and portraits of people.
This is really good. There are so many videos out there nitpicking at theoretical points that, while technically correct, are pretty misleading compared to the experience of actually shooting with m43 or FF. I'm another person who uses both and I feel like you completely nailed their real-world pros and cons.
Prior to moving to Sony full frame (i.e. A7RII, A7RIII, A7III and hopefully soon the A7SIII), I shot with a GH4 and toyed around with buying a GH5. Although much of what was said in this video is accurate, the selection and quality of optics are far better on my full frame Sony lineup than they are for APS-C and M43 lineups for both Sony and M43 camera formats. Somebody mentioned cost in the comments. I completely agree that full frame is EXPENSIVE. And many high end lenses for full frame are heavy, negating the weight advantage that Sony enjoys.
And with the advent of the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, there are lower cost alternatives to the GM series. I've owned the Tamron for almost 4 weeks now and have been doing everything in my power to cause it to glitch according to other user reports. Nothing has happened yet. In fact, the video performance under AF-C is impressive. If we see more FF glass coming from third party manufacturers, I think it is quite likely that many will see that FF is more affordable and within grasp of many APS-C and M43 users.
My problem with M4/3: Lens selection and low light performance for serious use. I can adapt full frame lenses to APS-C, also there are speedboosters that can help the APSC to gather as much light as the full frame sensors, but the M4/3 sensors are very compromised in that regard. I went with a Canon m50, i know the crop of 1.6x isn't beautiful to have, but i can adapt damn sharp canon lenses that don't break the bank, at the end i want clear sharp pictures and videos, high iso and small apertures are my enemies, i want to do casual astro photography.
Newest 20 megapixel M43 sensor in G9, GX9 or PEN-F actually beats M50 / 80D sensor in all measurable aspects including high ISO capabilities (although not by much) due to the superior technology, I will show the tests in a video soon. You can also adapt all kinds of FF and APS-C lenses on M43, especially Sigma 18-35 with speedbooster on Panasonic is great combination because of the IS.
@@TheHybridShooter I would like to see some images from the Sigma 18-35 with the speedbooster... what is it that makes it so great, I keep reading about that.
Great video as usual you do know what you are talking about! I know you didn't have the time to go over everything but can you answer these things that bug me about the a73 1-the a73 the lack of features compared to the advantages of the 4/3rds G9 features per price of a full frame camera, to get the features of a G9 or EMii you would have to spend twice as much (you would have to buy the a7rii, D810) for a full frame camera. They have stripped down the a7iii 2-Also besides low light and dept of field do you really get that much more? Yes only if you pixel peep. I took two shots side by side a73 and G9 and the only time i saw a big difference (quality wise) is when i magnified to 100%.Yes the full frame files were cleaner but not by much and in real life how often do you magnify to 100% unless you are doing a lot of cropping. 3-What are your thoughts on comparing the stabilization of the G9, if i shot the G9 hand held for 4 seconds @ 800 ISO i can get a very clean shot, to achieve this with a73 due to it's poor stabilization you must go up to 8-12,000 ISO @15-30fps to achieve this equivalent (i have tried this when i had the a73) , the two pics were very close but the a73 shots were not as sharp. Sports at night the full frame easily wins but with any non moving shots it appeared to me to be about equal (with the G9 stabilization) so can you really compare two picks at the same ISO when one has one of the best stabilization in the business? 4-Video wise you would need to buy a gimble to equal the stabilization of the G9 (i can send you my walking video comparing the G9 with a73 if you like) the a73 stabilization in video mode to me was not very good 5-What is your thoughts on apc D500, it is about equal to most full frame cameras in every way even close with dept of field. Because of this i am waiting for the new d760 it will have the features of the d750 plus the new full frame sensor Yes a73 is a better all around camera for just taking pics and it is better with dept of filed without a doubt, but with video at night you must use high ISO's which nobody really wants to do but the a73 can easily handle it, but in good day light the G9 EMii will win with it's 18-20fps or 6k modes and 80mp mode. Please give me your thoughts on the above questions thanks again and good job God bless
I personally don't miss any particular future in A7 III. With FF you also get better dynamic range, smoother highlights roll-off, richer RAW files, more color depth and so on (generally). IBIS indeed helps with non moving subjects, but holding camera still for a couple of seconds in not always possible. I have never used D500.
I take my best images from my Olympus 16mp EM1 and EM5 mk2 using an extensive range of primes and telephoto lenses, I post process in Light Room and touch up in Affinity Photo and then I print on my Canon Pixma Pro100S on Canon glossy plus photopaper A3 size and they look friggin stunning, the depth, the detail, the colour rendition, quite simply beautiful in every way. And then I panic, is this as good as it gets!
Today, Apr 8th 23, the A7iii is $2,000.00, the G9 is $900.00, the question is: are you willing to pay twice the price for camera, plus twice for the same zoom, prime lens to get that FF advantage?
Yes, I am. I have been using A7 III for 5 years, sold G9 probably 3 years ago. The lenses are definitely not the same though, you need to take equivalency into account.
Thank you for very interesting video! I for example choose Fujifilm XT3, because I think APS-C format is a "golden mean" between FF and 4/3 systems. Fujifilm I choose because APS-C is a main format for them, and they put full scale of their efforts in this format. For other big vendors like Canon, Nikon and Sony APS-C line is secondary, and I think they do not care much for it.
An f2.8 lens on MFT gathers the same amount of light per sq mm as it gathers on a FF sensor. The only difference is field of view which will be equivalent to f5.6 on FF. If you shoot milkyway with f2.8 lens on MFT and an f2.8 lens on FF, the image is going to be cleaner with more dtails on FF and that is not because of the lens. It is because of surface area/pixel on the FF sensor which is almost always going to be bigger than the one on MFT. Just FYI.
Well, I have said that in the video. Technically it is not because of the lens, but the lens has to be bigger to cover the whole sensor which is the whole point.
I've discovered that I need to use a faster shutter speed on my M4/3 camera to get sharp pictures. I get similar sharpness (less shutter blur/shake) on a slower shutter speed with a full frame.
Of course you need to use faster shutter speed at longer equivalent focal distance, if you zoom to get same angle of view on full frame you will also need use faster shutter speed, that has nothing to do with sensor size.
The Hybrid Shooter That makes sense, I was using a Zeiss Planar 45mm which is equivalent to a 90mm, it was less noticeable with a Nikkor 24mm on a speed booster, equivalent to about 35mm.
I moved from Panasonic GX85 to Sony A7mk3 and i only miss one thing, before i could fit 4-5 prime lenses in a pouch where as now i can only fit 1-2 sony lenses but i have no regrets having spent about 6k and still need to spent more i will probably buy MFT camera later on and second hand lenses.
Going from an APS-C system to a Full Frame, you have to get used to it. Old behaviors don't work as well. You need to make adjustments. But my god the low light, the dynamic range and Sony really has put the kitchen sink in these cameras. That is the 7th tab! So I am happy with my set up. Even if it is a bit bigger and definitely more expensive to get the good lenses for. If I was hiking a lot I probably had bought a nice MFT model.
I'm curious. Would you say that m4/3 has advantages over full frame when it comes to video? Am I wrong in noticing that rolling frame can sometimes be an issue with the Sony full frame cameras?
It's not full frame, but I just recently bought a used Viltrox EF-M2 II 0.71x speedbooster for my G85 (adapting M42/QBM to EF, then to MFT with the booster) and it's breathing quite some life into a few of my vintage lenses - might be worth a try if you can find it on the cheap (in my case I paid about 80€), and can live with a 1.42x crop factor in exchange for the world class IBIS and all the great usability of MFT bodies. Since there is also a booster for Fuji, the X-H1 and X-T4 are becoming amazing options for adapting old glass with the benefit of IBIS and hardly any crop (1.06x after use of the booster, if I remember correctly). If you're still looking at a second system, that might be a way to consider going.
M43 allowes me to play around with different lenses for some variety, hvile letting me slip the camera in a jacket pocket when a mount the 20mm pana, and have the 14-150mm in the other pocket(em10 and elp-6 bodies). And you are right the image quality and depth of field will is less than full frame but but good enough for me.
one thing, how can you say 4/3 consumer less power? the battery life on most 4/3 cams is abysmal and is a real sticking point for me. The battery life on my G85 is only decent if i turn the LCD off but in general, i find myself needing to charge the battery after every one or maybe two shooting sessions (defined as a day or so of walking around and shooting pictures intermittently). Also as far as portability, the better m 4/3 cameras are not much more portable than say aps-c and about equal in most aspects i've found, lenses are just a bit smaller, which is nice, zoom lenses considerably so but at the cost of less light gathering, a big loss. Hardly any of the options are pocketable so I end up bringing all the crap anyway.
Image quality is great on many m4/3, but you just don't have the same sensitivity and it's much more difficult to get the angles you need when working in tight spaces.
I'm not sure what you mean by sensitivity and you can get the same angle with M43 as with any other camera if you use the same equivalent focal length.
Thank you for your insightful and unbiased approach. I really enjoyed it. My 2 cents is that I have owned all sorts of systems and was never married to anyone f them. At the moment, I find Sony FF is the best fit for me and what I do. My only issue with m4/3 is the pricing. They are too expensive for what they offer and the quality they offer. Today, OM-D E-M 1II can be purchased for $1400 which is more to the actual value of the system rather than the $2000 original price. aside from that, in this day and age, we have fantastic systems with strengths and weaknesses and have the choice to get exactly what we need. There is no barrier to creating great images/videos especially in regards to the hardware. I do not like the versus series either. There is no perfect system and looking for one is useless. Thank you for the great content.
Thank you, Sony FF system is very strong at the moment, and the pricing of the A7 III was also quite aggressive, so they have cough the competition by surprise. Hopefully it will positively affect prices of upcoming cameras.
as a former m43 (Oly) shooter, current Fuji and Sony shooter, I settled mainly om FF Sony as this is only way I can mount vintage lenses (owning 500+ of them). Thanks for this video, very informative
A lot depends on available light where you shoot and type of shooting. I shoot over 90% outdoors and I live the southern USA which is very sunny. I don’t really see the advantages to a FF vs the size , weight and cost. I am very happy with crop sensor sizes
Actually when comparing photos with equivalent focal lengths from same distance, and adjusting Aperture to match depth of field, I found that MFT had to be less than half of FF. Example: F/2 on MFT looks more like F/4.5. I still shoot weddings using Canon FF, but have sold off my MFT for personal. Now I have Fuji XT2 as my compromise for travel.
It will be hard decision for me, because IBIS in a6600 is this same like it is in a73 (when we look for sensor size should be much better, closer to m43 IBIS). For travel/family shooting i dont know which will be better, BIG lenses in aps-c or worse deep of field in m43. I have FF from canon to work so i don't need another FF.
Probably the best comparison I've seen on RUclips. Eminently sensible. However I'm still torn between sticking with my Olympus or switching to Sony... 😀
What did you choose eventually? I had the same thought but eventually chose to stick with Olympus, partially for peace of mind but also because when I got the Leica 12-60 I was so mind blown by the quality of even casual pictures that I thought there's no need to change at all. I'm glad Olympus came out with the EM5 MkIII, I can't wait to be able to afford it!
So much misinformation out there. You nailed the explanation! Many people seem to miss that the total amount of light captured is key, and the same F-number with different sensor sizes can gather only the same amount of light per area, not in total. (as you mentioned @3:10)
Unrelated to this video but something i don't understand: why are mirrorless sensors just left exposed when the camera is turned off? They all have mechanical shutters so why cant it cover the sensor when changing lenses. This is the case with DSLRs as both the shutter and mirror protect the sensor when changing lenses
I would also like to see that issue solved somehow, although dust in the shutter mechanism is probably even worse than dust on the sensor, so that probably won't be a solution.
How about using an optical speed booster on a M4/3 camera using full frame lenses? Would be interesting to know how that changes the game. Would be an interesting video.
Speedboosters can also be used with FF cameras and medium format lenses, so it doesn't really change the game. It is possible that I will make a video about that in the future.
@@TheHybridShooter Please do! I have been looking into a speed booster for my Olympus but until recently the metabones has been way too expensive to be an "experimental" purchase. Thanks for the great channel.
Everything exists for a reason. So choosing which format also gives you trade off. People just have to figure what are their needs and choose the best suiting format for them.
Pretty much nails it. But i’m still stuck, I wish panasonic were doing full frame or APSC and I love the GX7 8 9 form factor and ergonomics but MFT pictures don’t have the pop of larger formats, i think that has a lot to do with commonly available lens apertures and dynamic range as it extends into shadow.
Very well said indeed. It confirms that I made the right choice for me. As someone who is not a professional photographer, likes to travel light and mostly does landscapes & architecture photography, the M43 system is great. Having a small and light system is worth a lot to me, and shallow depth of field is generally not desirable for the style of photography I do. But that is not to say that M43 is the right choice for everyone.
If money is tight, it's possible now to buy into used gear for all sensor sizes and enjoy the advantages each has. I use full frame, aps-c, a smart phone and even a mirrorless EVF Fuji fixed zoom that's near fifteen years old. Horses for courses...it's all good fun.
What about medium format cams? like Fuji's, Pentax's, Hasselblad's or others? I'm seriously considering bigger sensors to join my micro 4/3 collection (for architecture and design) and I'm equally considering skipping full frame (formerly small format) and go straight to medium format.
I don't see enough difference to justify big price difference and the lens selection of these systems is not very good. That may change with new 100 megapixel sensor, but those cameras will be very expensive.
Nice video, and well said. I have the G9 and stopped using it because it is just too heavy to lug around. I bought into M4/3's because of the size/quality combo and I enjoy shooting with my GX8 more because it is so much lighter and easier to carry. While FF is intriguing, I'd just go MMF if I wanted a bigger sensor.
July 16 2018 Hi: Sorry to bother you. I have these questions about Panasonic Lumix G9. 1. The resolution of my Nikon D750 is 24.3MP and G9 has 20.3MP resolution. So why the image Dimension out of Nikon is: 6016 x 4016 but in G9 the produced RAW image is only: 1990 x 1440 which is considerably way less than what’s supposed to be. Shouldn’t the image in G9 be at least 4000 x 3000? 2. I use the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 12-60mm f/2.8-4 lens. I am aware of the fact that due to the crop factor, 12-60mm becomes 24-120mm (35mm Equivalent). Am I really also getting f5.6 instead of f2.8 at 12mm? So does this mean that I never be at f2.8 in any Micro Four-Thirds Lenses and the sweet spot could be somewhere around 5.6 or larger aperture instead of f8 in many DSLR lenses? 3. With my Lumix G85, I never had this issue with “Ex. Tele Conv.” in Video Mode, but in G9 (Latest Firmware) I do. When I set the Ex. Tele Conv. to “ON” (Please note that I am not talking about the “Digital Zoom” feature), I expect in any 4K video, this feature should be OFF even though in the Menu I activated it. And it should only enlarge the video when I switch over to AVCHD (1080) in order to zoom in. But the G9 keeps the zoom factor even in 4K. So I need to go back to the menu in G9, deactivate Ex. Tele Conv., switch to 1080p then back to Menu, activate Ex. Tele Conv., and finally get back to 4K in order to get rid of the Tele Conv. Zoom effect. What’s going on? Thanks so much for your time.
1. you need to set picture size to L 2. You are getting what you would get if you used full frame at F5.6 3. G9 uses down-sampling, so it can still crop 4K video a bit.
So: are you saying then that at any given f stop m43 lenses are two stops slower than ff lenses? I snapped a few low light photos with my m43 camera @2.8/30/iso200 and they actually looked a little brighter on screen than photos shot with an apsc sony @2.8/30/iso200 using a ff lens. What am I missing?
ISO is supposed to compensate for light gathering capabilities of sensors, so you should always get same exposure with same settings regardless of what camera you use. Problem is that manufacturers lie about ISO, so there can be a difference between ISO that you actually use and the value on the screen and another problem can be light transition of you lenses.
Also take a look at:
*Panasonic GH5S* Review: bit.ly/GH5Sreview
The Hybrid Shooter Can you please give me the links for the 0.95 lenses? Thanks
amzn.to/2LcZkDY , amzn.to/2zAHrgQ , amzn.to/2Nea3yG
i will share this link video to our lumix users by whatsapp. Would you mind ?
Razeea I certainly wouldn't mind, I would appreciate it.
I unfortunately don't have either of those cameras.
WOW…. you nailed it perfectly!!! The right tool for the right job ….I own two full frame and one Olympus m4/3 camera. If I’m shooting in difficult lighting or need the best quality, the full frame is the tool of choice here. If portability is the main concern…. street photography, hiking, family pictures etc and you’re looking for the best quality to size ratio then you can’t beat m4/3’s. The best camera is the one you have with you and the extra portability of the m4/3’s is a real help. But the bottom line is this…..cameras don’t take pictures….people do.
Thank you, there is indeed is a time and place for every system.
I agree.. I obviously don't mind taking my Canon FF gear to weddings, or any other paid job.. but for just wanting to take a camera out hiking my fujifilm xt2 and 35 f2 for example is awesome!! I usually don't even touch my canon stuff unless its for actual work. I Do kinda want the G9 though, w/ that little 15mm f1.7 :]
come on? Is there any difference in terms of portability between panasonic g9/gh4, g85 and sony A7 or A7ii? yes, actually the full frame a7 is smaller.
it's not an argument for me. Where m43 shines is professional vlogging, you get amazing video quality with 4K 60fps, 10bit, and the best image stabilization + flip out screen. Thats it.
You need to use each camera with lens though, I addressed that in the video, so M43 does have size advantage overall.
over a6500? don't think so.. :) + its true a mid range zoom for a7 will be much bigger, however there are lot of nice small lenses, like the 35mm 2,8 or 28mm f2, 50 1.8.. beat this with m43 lenses.. olympus 25mm f/1.2? you get 50mm f/2.4 right? and it is not small
At the moment, MFT is right for me, because of those reasons:
- all mirrorless
- flipout screens
- OIS is incredible
- 4K 60fps with G9/GH5/GH5s
- 200-600mm equivalent reach with just 520g weight (Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm)
- this all at a rather affordable price
- I don't care for super huge bokeh.
- Dynamic Range and Low Light are not an issue for landscapes, because of bracketing.
Of course, as soon as there's shadow on the bird, you get a problem with noise or motion blur (for bird-movement only, OIS takes care of hand-shake). But that's a tradeoff I am willing to make. Fullframe is heavy and really expensive, if you want to get that close.
However APS-C is also very interesting. You can also get 600mm equivalent reach with about 1kg lenses for reasonable prices.
uHu You can also get 600mm equivalent with 0 weight gain by cropping apsc down to mft sizes.
I really like your summary and totally match my needs.
You can get a good amount of Bokeh from m43
One of the best photography channels on RUclips! Well said man.
Thank you, I'm really glad that you like this channel!
just subscribed, ... i agree with Photo-Me-Ike. Loved this video. For Street & "Carry-around everywhere" use, which is a better camera overall, EM10iii versus GX9 ? Panasonic is a Rangefinder-style body having only 2 Dials (two-in-one) on Top. Olympus has an EVF in center like Dslrs/Sony, and many more Dials. I like them both and would like to own both, but one at a time, so, which one first ? .... i am slightly tilting in favor of OLY
Chirag Parikh thank you, I appreciate your subscription. I much prefer GX9 to EM10 III, new sensor in GX9 is class above ME10 III.
thanks a lot.
I've used full frame, aps-c and now M43. Of the three I prefer the m43. quality is excellent, price of cameras and lenses are perfect for my budget
Same here. I switched from an a6300 to a Lumix G85 and I really love it. Only downside for me is the slower autofocus but the quality and the IBIS is really good.
@@RaffyUkon What was the reason to switch from A6300?
@@MrSojekEspecially the lack of in body stabilisation. Other than that, the a6300 was really good.
I just started on photography. I have a Sony Nex 5R...Now i have the chance to buy a Lumix Gx7 for 200 USD... M43 is that good to make the switch?
Still on Sony a6500. Thinking about going A7iii but still want to push my camera to its limits
A6500 is still a great camera, just the user experience could be a bit better.
I don't like the a6xxx Argo it's just too much small for my big hands. Personally, I hope Sony will do what Fuji did with the xt2 and xh1, so people can still buy the small body and others can buy the bigger one.
user experience? I think ergonomics of a6500 is amazing! I also use Fuji XT-2 and I really don't like its ergonomics.
Cześć Emil!
Unfortunately I can't afford A7iii, it would be the perfect choice for me. The video capabilities of a6500 are satisfying, but I am not happy with the picture quality and the lenses.. Even with sigma 16mm 1.4 and 30mm 1.4 which I bought recently, for video there are amazing, however for Bokeh... @ 1.4 you get a lot of chromatic aberration, and then if you stop down.. you loose bokeh. I think only full frame matters. A7iii is not that bad in terms of price, but the sony lenses choice sucks.. on one hand you have the GM's and Zeiss which are super expensive and on other hand garbage like 50mm 1.8, plastic made in china. Where in canon you have so many options from top quality L 1.2 glasses, through great quality and decent price 50mm 1.4 and 35mm f2 to super cheap ang leightweight 50mm 1.8.. This is the thing!
So to sum up.. I don't know what to do :) I'm thinking if there is a sense to switch to Fuji XT-3 cause, in terms of video, it looks wow, and I already have some nice glasses in my family, like 10-24mm, 18-55mm, 55-200mm.. but don't like ergonomics that much.
Talking about fast zooms: nowadays there’s Panasonic 10-25/1.7 is available, which seems to be pretty awesome in terms of the range, aperture and picture quality.
Yes definitely brings some new options to M43 system, although I wouldn't quite call the aperture and picture quality "awesome".
you got some info wrong: f2.8 on m43 provides same depth of field as f4.0 on full frame, and both still gather the same amount of light per unit of area (sqmm, sqin, etc) meaning that for a given field of view, the light is identical... the t-stop is different, but non-cine lenses/cameras don't typically care about that.
No, it isn't because the total are is obviously not the same...
Just wanted to say that this is one of the most helpful and balanced videos I've seen on the topic. Well done! I just bought a GH5 (upgrading from a T6i) and am going back and forth on whether I should keep it or choose the a7iii instead. Really love the bokeh of full frame and low light performance, but the lack of flip screen on the Sony and stronger video settings on the GH5 are compelling.
Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for a great video and channel. Keep it up!
Thank you, I appreciate your feedback!
I like your analysis. After about 10 years, I have given up APS-C and gone to a G9, GX7 and Canon 5D III. I used mostly FF lenses on a 77D, which didn't give it much of a size advantage over the 5D III, and when I bought the G9 I like the IQ better than the 77D! And I love the tiny overall size of an MFT kit. There are not many FF lenses that are as good as or better than the pro-level MFT lenses as well.
The most concrete and technical summary about pros and cons for m43 vs full-frame that you can find on the Internet.
To the point and without fanboying.
Great job ... waiting for more content like this!
Thank you, I appreciate your feedback, more similar videos will be coming soon!
I love that you mentioned “theoretically vs real life” a lot. I feel like these types of comparisons get bogged down when people get off of real world applications and argue about math and test charts.
finally some comparison with common sense and just straight facts. Really rare these days. Well done bro
Thank you!
I have Sony A7 III and Panasonic GH5, love them both, big love! Good for different jobs!
Finally, a level-headed video on sensor sizes. My vote is for MFT because it's by far the best balance between large and small sensors. If you're being paid to shoot portraits, you will probably prefer full-frame. If you're shooting video, there are huge advantages to smaller sensors that make them more useful. The BMPCC 4K is a highly anticipated and recently released MFT camera designed exclusively for professional video work; Blackmagic did not choose MFT for no reason. Camcorders have sensors on par with point-and-shoot cameras because the advantages of smaller sensors are very compelling for video-only devices. All that said, there are some video advantages to APS-C and FF systems, particularly in the shallow depth of field department. It's important to fully understand your tools and choose the right one. In the end, the old truism stands: a good craftsman blames himself; only a poor craftsman blames his tools.
We're getting to a point that it really hardly matters from a sensor performance perspective. There have been great breakthroughs throughout the years. A GH4 you wouldn't even think of using over ISO800, but the new GH5S blows it away. You used to have very constrasty looks with blownout skies, now we have quite some dynamic range and recoverable highlights with V-LOG L and HLG. The leaps each generation makes is astonishing. I do not need a camera that does ISO1638400. A clean ISO6400/12800 comes a long way. So, for me sensor performance itself isn't an argument anymore. It is true that with larger sensor cameras you have it easier with the options of going wide. Depth of field naturally is shallower as well for the same f-stop. But shallow depth of field was never a standard. People nowadays just set their lens wide open and shoot. That's great and all, but you might want to give your subject some context, some environment. That's the real photography, if you can pull that off. Really think about your subject in relation to its surroundings. Composition. Et cetera.
Besides there are enough lenses for MFT that are plenty sensitive and blur backgrounds just as well. Some gorgeous f/0.95-f/1.8 options out there. And my favourite thing about MFT: you can keep the lenses small, e.g. use the petit Leica 15mm f/1.7. Pair it with a GX80/85 and you're shooting with something the footprint of the LX100 premium compact camera. That's another thing I like about MFT... all the body options. There's something for all types, sizes and budgets. With Sony APS-C you have one A6x00 camera per generation. And Sony hasn't been developing compact lenses specific to the APS-C sensor for years. It does focus on keeping the body tiny... with only leads to problems with ergonomics, practical solutions and features and issues like overheating. Their A7III seems a supergreat camera, tremendous value. But I couldn't take a fullframe system because I'd need to go get and use fullframe lenses, which are bulky and expensive.
I think APS-C is the sweetspot, right between the compactness of MFT and the performance of fullframe. But... as I said, I find Sony's A6x00 and APS-C lens line-up a joke... the same I think of Canon's EOS-M system, which is greatly crippled as to not adversely affect high-end camera sales. I do have a Nikon D5300, but I do not use it much, as I absolutely dislike the traditional DSLR experience and unfortunately they don't have a mirrorless system out. But, with MFT catching up in performance, I think it's a solid choice to stick with it. You get all the body and lens choices. Are able to keep things compact. And they have some of the best features and value out there. The E-M1 Mark II and GH5S flagships all have vari-angle touchscreens, dual cardslots, great batterylife, amazing IBIS, audio interfaces et cetera. I can't fault these camera bodies. Whereas with the other systems I always find something to dislike. We could definitely do with better dynamic range as well as improved autofocus performance (think Panasonic betting on their Depth-From-Defocus horse was the wrong move; they need to acknowledge they made a mistake with that and go with something hybrid pixel sensor level phase detect), but to me it's still the best compromise. While at the end, all cameras are a compromise and there isn't really one definit winner. There's only the best compromise for how one shoots and that varies from one person to the next. So... there's no need for battles over which camera is the best. Just find one that suits you and enjoy it! Fanboyism out of the window!
I agree.
If APS-C had similar options as MFT, it would probably be a great choice.
That being said, the more time passes by, the less important low light performance will be. MFT is already very usable in most conditions ... in some years, it will be there, where FF is now.
Of course FF will be much better by then as well ... and better is always better. But when good is already good enough, you don't need better.
I also don't understand this hype around super blurry backgrounds. Often I would even prefer less, but then you usually get those ugly corners in the bokeh, when you stop down. So less blurr of MFT lenses can also be a benefit.
APS-C is probably the sweetspot between the both. But I feel like both Sony and Canon fail to provide an attractive APS-C mirrorless system as a whole. I have always liked Nikon in terms of value and results. But the traditional DSLR approach really bothered me with my D5300. Nikon however would be the prime candidate for APS-C mirrorless. Hope they'll do that. Otherwise still going to be happy with MFT. I do get the advantage of the FF/MF systems, but I don't want to run another lens collection, I already have so many and to be honest I can make 4/3" sensor performance work for me. Just requires a little more from the person behind the camera. Which, might not be a bad thing.
GH5s is a specific case, it sacrifices the resolution and low native ISO for the low light, so it is suitable for advanced production, but probably not for average filmmaker. Shallow depth of field IMO was and is a standard, especially when big movies used be be shot on 65 / 70mm film which is now making a comeback thanks to ARRI's 65mm sensor. There definitely is something appealing about separating the subject as a way of putting emphasis on the subject which gives you creative options for storytelling.
AF on A7 III is better than on A6500.
This is the best video you have made. We need more videos like this dispelling the merit of cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and fanboyism.
Thank you, it't just cameras, there is no need to get emotional here.
I love using both MFT and APS-C cameras! I think, MFT is "best used" with small and fast primes! At least, that´s my favorite way of using it. This gives me the opportunity to reap many of the benefits of this system: small, light, unobtrusive, IS even with those small and fast primes (2 factors that enable me to use low ISO) and good image quality. And a lot of those cameras look pretty stylish as well!
Well said
Totally agree
You also forgot to mention the natural advantage m43 has for macro as well. More dof. Close shot for the crop factor. High res mode. Better stabilization. Really the best system for macro imo.
Thank you, M43 is indeed very suitable for macro, although the high-res mode and IS are advantages of specific cameras, not necessarily the whole system.
Fuji Managed to get better Depth of field in any circumstance, on an APS-C. Not sure why nobody else can figure it out.
Better depth of field? Do you mean shallower? At given aperture the DoF is always the same with the same sensor size and shallower with larger sensor, there is not way to make it better or worse.
I was hesitant in the beginning as the intro was a little more than needed IMO.
Then there was; No distracting music, direct and to the point, unbiased opinions and honest usability.
This is The Best take down on image sensor format I've found.
~subbed!!!
Thank you, I appreciate your subscription!
I used to use the APSC format, but my issue with it became that it was hard to get your "classic" focal length primes on it (28, 35, 40, 50 70,135 etc.) because of the crop factor. It seems there are very few lenses actually designed for APSC. They are all just FF designs and focal lengths from the 35mm era stuck on a smaller sensor with a 1.5 crop factor to deal with. It was frustrating to try and find a fast prime with a field of view that felt "natural" to me. The one exception to this is Fuji. They have unique focal lengths that are designed for a crop sensor.
I switched to M43 for this reason. All their lenses focal lengths are half the FF equivalent and designed specifically for the 2x crop factor. I also just love the smaller form factor as I am more likely to take it with me out and about and can be more discreet when shooting.
I like how straightforward and unbiased this was. It is true that you have to find the format that fits your situation. For me that happens to be M43.
I love aps-c especially on Sony but you're right they need to bring it back to life
Agreed, APS-C deserves more commitment from Sony.
I don't think they're going to develop new compact APS-C lenses. They haven't for years. So, with that said. Who would buy another A6x00 with the A7III priced so competitively. The newest E-mount lenses are FF anyways and the larger body has better ergonomics, ports/features and generally less likely to hit issues such as overheating. I can only see it work if they bring back the A5x00 series that's around 500~750 bucks to have a budget mirrorless APS-C option.
I would love to see Nikon go mirrorless APS-C. Their D5x00 line-up is great, but I hate the traditional DSLR experience. That sort of camera mirrorless would be a winner.
Any news of the Sigma 50 mm f1.4 ? I really hope Sigma will come with a 16-70 mm - F2.8 Zoom lens for APS-C...
50mm F1.4 should be introduced in September.
The full frame lenses are expensives and heavy... Every body don't want to have a heavy bag... The next APSC model will not sale if they don't make a effort for the APSC users... PS : I want a fast zoom from Sony or Sigma... (16-50 or 16-70 F2.8).
Wouldn't you get similar Bokeh by using a Speedbooster like the Viltrox on the MFT cameras?
Yes, you will, just like when you use speed booster and medium format lenses on full frame...
Hey Hybrid. I'm already following you for a long time and I have to say: your content is great. Really honest and no bias at all. You've convinced me to buy a G80/G85 and I still watch your tutorials on that camera. You deserve way more subscribers.
Thank you, I'm glad that you like content on this channel.
Forgive me if im wrong, and this was under the limited informations available on the subject, But crop factor has no effect on the T-stop (Light transmission) of a lens only the F-stop. So essentially the only thing effecting low light capability is the sensor. Many of the mft primes such as the lumix 25 f1.7 were marked at a t-stop of 2 on dxo mark which is the same as many other full frame lenses of the same f-stop. Given a full frame and mft camera were put against each other, they should perform similarly when the crop is accounted for on the mft (if at 100 iso on the full frame, put at 400 iso on mft) in a low light test, if of course focal length, megapixel, and t-stop value is the same.
No, that is not correct. T-stops are just more accurate reading of how much light actually gets through the lens, but t-stops are affected by crop the way same as F-stops. You need to multiply the T-stops the same way as F-stops to find out the equivalent depth of field and how much light gets to the sensor in comparison with full frame.
T-stops are a constant though, the t-stop ranking given by dxo mark does not change based on the system the lens is deigned for, the entire reason the measurement was created was to have a constant measurement of light transmission compared to other lenses. other information ive found has also stated that crop factor has no effect on T-stop.
The F-stop are constant as well, it is just the size of the front element divided by the iris opening, so F2.8 is still F2.8 regardless of weather it is on FF or M43. It is just *full frame equivalent* that is different on FF and M43 and there you need multiply it. T-stops work the same way as F-stops, T-tops just take into account optical construction of each lens.
If you want the fullframe look on m43 why not use a focal reducer/speed booster?
Because it adds cost, size, weight and messes up the autofocus.
Bought my first "real" camera two years ago and after considering all the angles(or so I thought), I decided on m43 in the form of a Panasonic G7. Well, now that I know a lot more, I think I got lucky and made the right choice. I've since upgraded to a G85 and a GH5 and a couple of gimbals, a Sigma 16mm, a Lumix 25mm and 42.5mm, and a Laowa 7.5mm. I can shoot gorgeous 4k all day long without heat issues and even though I still have a lot to learn, this stable of cameras is not a limitation for me. And you add everything together, and I've got about as much invested in the whole kit as I'd have with a Sony FF and a kit lens.
I actually use both my A7iii and G85 in a very similar way as you do. Hands down if I ever have to do any recording beyond 25 minutes continuously or in a warm or hot condition, I will always reach for my G85.
An exceptional summary, clear and easy to follow with great images. One factor I’m not sure you mentioned, and the main reason I’m a M4/3 fan - cost. I would love to have a full frame - and maybe I will some day, but I think I got more bang for my buck when considering the lenses.
Thank you, I can't say, that M43 is generally cheaper, especially if you want lenses that can do what FF counterparts can do, they are often much more expensive.
Lumix G7 paired with sigma 16mm f1.4 really took the camera next level! Hyped about more DC DN glass.
Try the Laowa 7.5mm it takes clarity and ultra-wide to another notch with the G7. couldn't believe how much improvement that gave me.
The best comparison so far. Those who say sensor size does not affect depth of field is assuming same focal length and aperture, but in reality, the shooter creates the same framing of the picture, not the same focal length, so this "theoretically correct" statement is completely useless. I would've loved a more in-depth analysis of video. The aps-c/MFT advantage in video derives from what? sensor stablization? less heat? lower resolution?
Good overview on pros and cons of MFT and APS-C vs FF. One thing not mentioned is the secret weapon of both MFT and APS-C: speedboosters. A speedboosted f2.8 FF zoom is a dream come true, equivalent to a 40% wider f2 lens. It totally eliminates the drawbacks of a cropped sensor while significantly improving the image quality of the FF lens. Even without a speedbooster, a plain MFT or APS-C adapter uses only the central rectangle of a FF lens, eliminating the softness and vignetting at the edges of the lens.
Thank you, although I don't think that option to use speedboosters is advantage specific to crop sensors, you can you speedbooster and medium format lenses of full frame as well. It also adds weight, size, cost and messes with autofocus. Crop lenses only use central part of the lens, but they also have higher pixels density, as I explained in this video, so FF usually has higher perceived resolution.
I've never heard of a speedbooster for using medium format lenses on a FF camera. Is such a thing available for Nikon or Canon cameras? On MFT and APS-C, speedboosters aren't any bulkier than a plain adapter, but cost and auto-focus limitations are indeed drawbacks.
I don't know about speedboosters for Canon / Nikon full frame, but Kipon makes Hasselblad to Sony E-mount speedbooster for example.
I would love to have a GH5 as a second video camera, but since I mainly use Sony FF for pictures a Sony APS-C felt like a wiser choice
Having both FF and APS-C Sony camera is very useful, because of the extra reach with FF lenses on APS-C.
2:48 Panasonics 10-25mm f1.7 is on the way :3
Edit: messed up the numbers
I don't think so.
@@TheHybridShooter yeah i got it wrong, its a 10-25mm f1.7
but hey, close enough :')
5:54.... please tell me what optic use for this photo with G85 and how you elaborate the photo! Thanks!
That was shot with Panasonic 12-35mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens, with a bit of editing in Adobe Lightroom.
Thanks for a good overview. I don't how I had missed this one on your channel.
I thought I found a loophole for m4/3. I bought the Mitakon 25mm F0.95 lens with the G85. Figured that would give me the most feature rich full frame looking camera for the price. It has worked out pretty well, but at f0.95 it's not that sharp and looks better at f1.4, so my advantage shrunk from f1.9 equiv to f2.8. That plus the colors aren't very good on the lens, and the annoyance of having to manual focus on myself from a distance is a pain lol.
I still get a respectable look for video, but I realize how much easier filming myself would be with a full frame camera with good auto focus. I'm just waiting on something like the 6D II with a flip out screen, but better quality video. If the Sony a6700 has a flip out screen, I'd consider upgrading to that, but I do want a full frame camera still. We'll see what Canon's mirrorless or the a7s III has in store ;)
F0.95 lenses are extremely difficult to make, basically only Leica does those right, so those can't really compensate for the crop factor.
I loved this lens on my G85 and love it even more on my G9. It is better suited as a video lens IMO, as the aberrations and lack of sharpness off-center is noticeable for stills.
Maybe a Speedbooster with Fullframe Lenses would work for you.
It's just sad, that they're a bit pricey.
With an Olympus f1.2 prime, you'll have decent shallow depth of field, autofocus, and very sharp images wide open. The downsides are price, size and not quite as shallow DoF as a f2 lens on full frame. But really, you may be okay with that, given the advantages.
Honestly, I don't get Olympus Pro lenses, for the price of one Olympus Pro lens, you can have older full frame camera with F1.8 prime that will give shallower depth of field and similar or better IQ because of lower pixel density.
“You can , but in the real world, not really” 😂 I love it! Great video 👍🏼
Thank you!
Great piece!
Also, it is very rare - thus refreshing - to hear someone discuss this topic with reason rather than prejudice and emotion. :D
Thank you!
I agree with some of your other viewers- this is one of your best videos, yet! Such a clear and well reasoned ( and balanced) discussion on the different sensors. Quite illuminating - if you will pardon the pun! Thanks for doing this.
You're welcome, I'm glad that you like this video, thank you for watching!
I am just sending the link to this video to a friend of mine!
Great, very reasonable and balanced overview! Actually one of the best on the topic that I happened to come across.
It would be worth mentioning Speed Boosters for the sake of completeness. These can cost as much as a lens, but can help getting nearly a full frame look even with M43 (as close as one can possibly get). Of course with all the hassle around it (lagging AF or in fact mostly manual focus, corner softness, chromatic aberrations).
Thank you, the speedbosters are separate topic, I will make a video about those in the future, but you can also get speedboosters for full frame cameras and use medium format lenses, so I wouldn't say that the possibility of using speedbooster is an advantage of sensors smaller than full frame.
I have been looking for a clearer and honest comparison for ages. This is it right here! Keep up the good work!
Thank you, I will do my best to keep it up!
6:44 How did you create these images? Just raw files with lots of editing to bring back the detail?
Yes, those are RAWs with recovered highlights and shadows and some extra editing.
Nice review as always - thanks - both cameras are great - m43 will make a lighter kit - and cost of G9 kit will be cheaper as Sony lenses are expensive -
I have M43 and APS-C and FF - the ergo on the G9 is just awesome - and great Touch LCD interface and nice menu system and awesome IBIS - but yes I love my Fuji XT2's as well and Sony A7 III - and also my many 1 inch cameras - including the Sony RX10 m4 - with 24-600mm range - try that in FF :) - so yes a 1 inch sensor is needed -
For street shooting I tend to use my M43 cameras more - and my Fuji Xt2's - only at night would I consider taking the A7 m3 - but only if I am shooting color and trying to have as little grain as possible - but at night I often shoot BW so grain not an issue - so a light kit is welcome - would like to see Fuji include IBIS in their XT3/4/5 body - which I guess will not happen - rumor says no IBIS in XT3 - and X-H1 is just to bulky for street shooting - so m43 is ideal - both Panasonic and Fuji have very nice BW modes - FF sure has its place as well - Sony seems to want to phase out their APS-C bodies - yes they are producing new bodies but very very few lenses -
Pentax Sony Fuji Panasonic Canon Nikon Olympus all have nice cameras for the most part - and there is no perfect camera - as there are various needs -
Interesting though to see how Sony and Fuji have really diehard Fanboys :) there are more old faithfuls of Nikon and Canon but not as fanatic :) Fuji has more of a Puritans, that hate Touch and IBIS etc - Sony Fanboys sometimes forget that Nikon and Panasonic and even Canon and Fuji that use Sony sensors :)
There are no f/0.95 lenses for Sony's FE-Mount. Well, there was at least one, the Mitakon Speedmaster 50mm, but the actual result was about a T/1.4. And so far, no one's made an automatic f/0.95 lens. Even Nikon's announced $6,500 f/0.95 for the Z system is slated to be manual. Support of a real f/0.95 lens was Nikon's big argument for going to a 55mm flange size.
Big depth of field on MFTs can look great. Especially for video.
Hello. I have recently tridepos Panasonic g90 as well as Sony A7 II. The later give me a wonderful image quality but felt very old. The other camera give me that kind of flat images. Still a more modern camera. Not sure which way to go.. there is also a lot of mirrorless aps-c cameras. What would you get today?
A7 III or X-T4.
Most of the disadvantages of the micro system can be overcome by practical means except dynamic range it seems to me. Or has your experience overcome this issue or have you got close enough so as not to notice ? As always love your videos always good and for me ballanced options . I suppose I'm a fan boy of people who know what they are doing. Thank you.
Now it is actually the full frame that overcame all of the practical disadvantages.
The main disadvantage of M43 that can't be overcome is high pixel density, which puts extremely high requirements on optical design and limits perceived detail.
@@TheHybridShooter Thank you for your reply. Most of all thank you for your informed and entertaining videos, I enjoy them very much.
Thanks for this review, so clear and easy to understand. When I bought into the M43 system I was aware of the depth of field implications compared to full frame, however was not aware of the differences of total light gathered and how that might impact image noise. You mention this around the 3:20 mark in your video and also go onto say that the increased base ISO of 200 on the 20mp M43 sensors goes some way to mitigating this. If you ever had the time, would be great if you could go into this in a little more depth. Also, would the dual ISO capability of the newer M43 cameras largely erode this total light gathering advantage the Full Frame sensors have?
You're welcome, ISO 200 just increases noise in comparison with ISO 100 and it you need to use faster shutter speed and more dense ND filters. Dula ISO won't help much, because new BSI full frame sensors have more multiple base ISO settings that are being switched automatically.
I have done an odd experiment with 6D, SL2 Canon and MFT Lumix - where I am shooting close-ups and trying to evaluate how sharp the lens or sensors are - my comparison is based on me shooting FILM for many many years - and I am not impressed with digital sharpness. I've tried using autofocus as well as manual - and nothing compares to slide or color negative film sharpness - IMHO. AM I imagining things or is this also a complaint with everyone. I have used prime lenses, zooms, Canon, Tamron, Sigman lenses - and nothing is as sharp as film. I will say that out of the 3 cameras - the 6D produces sharper images than the SL2 or MFT. Any feedback is welcomed.
Hi, I’m looking for a mirrorless camera and my budget is between 700 and 900 €. I like photography and video making and I was searching a camera for both photos and video. I already have a Nikon D90 and I was interested in a MFT camera (g80?) but I’m not sure. I’m not a professional photographer but I am improving my capabilities... is that a good choice?
Thank you for your videos, are well recorded, edited and commented 😄
G80 is very good camera for the price. Also take a look at Sony A6300.
If I was using the Oly with a 300MM lens for a 600MM field of view, is there any way to also get the bokeh that comes with a longer focal length 600MM lens?
When tracking a distant subject like a race car or footballer - or my nephews in a crowd - I often need separation from an ugly or distracting background.
Maybe a bokeh art filter?
I think the image processing in smartphones now commonly generates artificial bokeh or maybe a gaussian blur.
I enjoy just about all kinds of photography and I agree, APS-C and micro 4/3 seem to be underrated, at least compared to full frame. I guess that APS-C and micro 4/3 is better in some sense for astronomy and microscopy, since you can get a higher crop factor. I have found it seems that many photographers who want to delve into extreme macro prefer APS-C over Full Frame. Sure, Full frame can have better dynamic range, but I think that the benefits of smaller sensors need to be discussed or thought about more. My dream is to have a very small camera (like a Sony RX100) with at least a micro 4/3 sensor and have it have the features that a Gopro has, and be based on apps. Samsung once made great app-based cameras, and it's sad that they have quit on cameras.
I don't think that crop sensor are underrated, there is a wide base of happy crop sensor users.
The "light gathering" advantage of FF is a misnomer. For example f/1.2 on FF vs MFT vs APSc is the same exposure triangle for all systems. Likewise the often bandied "equivalence" is also a misleading. In many (most?) situations, you will be shooting at mid-apertures or focused near infinity to maximize DOF.
No, it isn't. You will get the same exposure with same setting, but only because the ISO compensating for that (there is noise difference). Actual light gathering is different.
@@TheHybridShooter Of course it's different; the light cone emerging from a FF lens is spread across an area four times an MFT sensor. The light per unit area is effectively the same, which is why the exposure triangle is the same for both. Now go take some photos.
PS: The fact that a speedbooster concentrates the light cone from a FF lens thus effectively increasing the aperture number demonstrates my point.
@@sandb1867 No, the exposure is the same because the ISO is set that way. FF sensor absorbs more light overall, which is why the noise level is lover.
Excellent video!!! One of your best.
Thank you, I'm glad that you like it!
PLs can you tell your opinion about Panasonic g80 in comparison with fuji xt20. Most use is youtube videos and photo of my family. What to choose? Thanks for answer.
I haven't tested X-T20, so I unfortunately can't compare those.
Since the Fuji. XT3 is only 1,300$ now , should I get that or the A7III for hybrid shooting? Things like documentaries, interviews and portraits of people.
Take a look at my comparison video, it mostly depends on your preferences: bit.ly/A7IIIvsXT3
This is really good. There are so many videos out there nitpicking at theoretical points that, while technically correct, are pretty misleading compared to the experience of actually shooting with m43 or FF. I'm another person who uses both and I feel like you completely nailed their real-world pros and cons.
Thank you, you said it well, some interpretations of the technical aspects are indeed misleading when it comes to real-world situations.
Prior to moving to Sony full frame (i.e. A7RII, A7RIII, A7III and hopefully soon the A7SIII), I shot with a GH4 and toyed around with buying a GH5. Although much of what was said in this video is accurate, the selection and quality of optics are far better on my full frame Sony lineup than they are for APS-C and M43 lineups for both Sony and M43 camera formats. Somebody mentioned cost in the comments. I completely agree that full frame is EXPENSIVE. And many high end lenses for full frame are heavy, negating the weight advantage that Sony enjoys.
And with the advent of the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, there are lower cost alternatives to the GM series. I've owned the Tamron for almost 4 weeks now and have been doing everything in my power to cause it to glitch according to other user reports. Nothing has happened yet. In fact, the video performance under AF-C is impressive. If we see more FF glass coming from third party manufacturers, I think it is quite likely that many will see that FF is more affordable and within grasp of many APS-C and M43 users.
My problem with M4/3: Lens selection and low light performance for serious use.
I can adapt full frame lenses to APS-C, also there are speedboosters that can help the APSC to gather as much light as the full frame sensors, but the M4/3 sensors are very compromised in that regard.
I went with a Canon m50, i know the crop of 1.6x isn't beautiful to have, but i can adapt damn sharp canon lenses that don't break the bank, at the end i want clear sharp pictures and videos, high iso and small apertures are my enemies, i want to do casual astro photography.
Newest 20 megapixel M43 sensor in G9, GX9 or PEN-F actually beats M50 / 80D sensor in all measurable aspects including high ISO capabilities (although not by much) due to the superior technology, I will show the tests in a video soon.
You can also adapt all kinds of FF and APS-C lenses on M43, especially Sigma 18-35 with speedbooster on Panasonic is great combination because of the IS.
@@TheHybridShooter I would like to see some images from the Sigma 18-35 with the speedbooster... what is it that makes it so great, I keep reading about that.
Great video as usual you do know what you are talking about! I know you didn't have the time to go over everything but can you answer these things that bug me about the a73
1-the a73 the lack of features compared to the advantages of the 4/3rds G9 features per price of a full frame camera, to get the features of a G9 or EMii you would have to spend twice as much (you would have to buy the a7rii, D810) for a full frame camera. They have stripped down the a7iii
2-Also besides low light and dept of field do you really get that much more? Yes only if you pixel peep. I took two shots side by side a73 and G9 and the only time i saw a big difference (quality wise) is when i magnified to 100%.Yes the full frame files were cleaner but not by much and in real life how often do you magnify to 100% unless you are doing a lot of cropping.
3-What are your thoughts on comparing the stabilization of the G9, if i shot the G9 hand held for 4 seconds @ 800 ISO i can get a very clean shot, to achieve this with a73 due to it's poor stabilization you must go up to 8-12,000 ISO @15-30fps to achieve this equivalent (i have tried this when i had the a73) , the two pics were very close but the a73 shots were not as sharp. Sports at night the full frame easily wins but with any non moving shots it appeared to me to be about equal (with the G9 stabilization)
so can you really compare two picks at the same ISO when one has one of the best stabilization in the business?
4-Video wise you would need to buy a gimble to equal the stabilization of the G9 (i can send you my walking video comparing the G9 with a73 if you like) the a73 stabilization in video mode to me was not very good
5-What is your thoughts on apc D500, it is about equal to most full frame cameras in every way even close with dept of field. Because of this i am waiting for the new d760 it will have the features of the d750 plus the new full frame sensor
Yes a73 is a better all around camera for just taking pics and it is better with dept of filed without a doubt, but with video at night you must use high ISO's which nobody really wants to do but the a73 can easily handle it, but in good day light the G9 EMii will win with it's 18-20fps or 6k modes and 80mp mode. Please give me your thoughts on the above questions thanks again and good job God bless
I personally don't miss any particular future in A7 III. With FF you also get better dynamic range, smoother highlights roll-off, richer RAW files, more color depth and so on (generally). IBIS indeed helps with non moving subjects, but holding camera still for a couple of seconds in not always possible. I have never used D500.
I take my best images from my Olympus 16mp EM1 and EM5 mk2 using an extensive range of primes and telephoto lenses, I post process in Light Room and touch up in Affinity Photo and then I print on my Canon Pixma Pro100S on Canon glossy plus photopaper A3 size and they look friggin stunning, the depth, the detail, the colour rendition, quite simply beautiful in every way. And then I panic, is this as good as it gets!
Today, Apr 8th 23, the A7iii is $2,000.00, the G9 is $900.00, the question is: are you willing to pay twice the price for camera, plus twice for the same zoom, prime lens to get that FF advantage?
Yes, I am. I have been using A7 III for 5 years, sold G9 probably 3 years ago. The lenses are definitely not the same though, you need to take equivalency into account.
Thank you for very interesting video! I for example choose Fujifilm XT3, because I think APS-C format is a "golden mean" between FF and 4/3 systems. Fujifilm I choose because APS-C is a main format for them, and they put full scale of their efforts in this format. For other big vendors like Canon, Nikon and Sony APS-C line is secondary, and I think they do not care much for it.
You're welcome, X-T3 is great camera, one of the best that I have used. I also think that it is a real shame that manufacturers are neglecting APS-C.
An f2.8 lens on MFT gathers the same amount of light per sq mm as it gathers on a FF sensor. The only difference is field of view which will be equivalent to f5.6 on FF. If you shoot milkyway with f2.8 lens on MFT and an f2.8 lens on FF, the image is going to be cleaner with more dtails on FF and that is not because of the lens. It is because of surface area/pixel on the FF sensor which is almost always going to be bigger than the one on MFT. Just FYI.
Well, I have said that in the video. Technically it is not because of the lens, but the lens has to be bigger to cover the whole sensor which is the whole point.
I've discovered that I need to use a faster shutter speed on my M4/3 camera to get sharp pictures. I get similar sharpness (less shutter blur/shake) on a slower shutter speed with a full frame.
That is probably caused by shutter mechanism in you M43 camera.
The Hybrid Shooter I think it's because of the small sensor size, more magnification makes camera shake more noticeable.
Of course you need to use faster shutter speed at longer equivalent focal distance, if you zoom to get same angle of view on full frame you will also need use faster shutter speed, that has nothing to do with sensor size.
The Hybrid Shooter That makes sense, I was using a Zeiss Planar 45mm which is equivalent to a 90mm, it was less noticeable with a Nikkor 24mm on a speed booster, equivalent to about 35mm.
I moved from Panasonic GX85 to Sony A7mk3 and i only miss one thing, before i could fit 4-5 prime lenses in a pouch where as now i can only fit 1-2 sony lenses but i have no regrets having spent about 6k and still need to spent more i will probably buy MFT camera later on and second hand lenses.
If you are willing to sacrifice some light gathering, take a look at Samyang F2.8 primes, those are optically excellent.
Going from an APS-C system to a Full Frame, you have to get used to it. Old behaviors don't work as well. You need to make adjustments. But my god the low light, the dynamic range and Sony really has put the kitchen sink in these cameras. That is the 7th tab! So I am happy with my set up. Even if it is a bit bigger and definitely more expensive to get the good lenses for.
If I was hiking a lot I probably had bought a nice MFT model.
I personally didn't make any adjustments when I bought full frame camera apart from using higher apertures in most situations.
Still with my dear a6500. Isn't perfect (dim screen, cropping in slowmo) but for price and seize it's really great comparing it to fullframe.
I'm curious. Would you say that m4/3 has advantages over full frame when it comes to video? Am I wrong in noticing that rolling frame can sometimes be an issue with the Sony full frame cameras?
Generally, no, although Sony has to process much more data from the sensor, which causes that rolling shutter shutter.
Great video, very balancd. I love my Pen-F but would like to try out a bigger sensor sometime to get the original fov on adapted vintage lenses.
Thank you!
It's not full frame, but I just recently bought a used Viltrox EF-M2 II 0.71x speedbooster for my G85 (adapting M42/QBM to EF, then to MFT with the booster) and it's breathing quite some life into a few of my vintage lenses - might be worth a try if you can find it on the cheap (in my case I paid about 80€), and can live with a 1.42x crop factor in exchange for the world class IBIS and all the great usability of MFT bodies.
Since there is also a booster for Fuji, the X-H1 and X-T4 are becoming amazing options for adapting old glass with the benefit of IBIS and hardly any crop (1.06x after use of the booster, if I remember correctly). If you're still looking at a second system, that might be a way to consider going.
M43 allowes me to play around with different lenses for some variety, hvile letting me slip the camera in a jacket pocket when a mount the 20mm pana, and have the 14-150mm in the other pocket(em10 and elp-6 bodies). And you are right the image quality and depth of field will is less than full frame but but good enough for me.
one thing, how can you say 4/3 consumer less power? the battery life on most 4/3 cams is abysmal and is a real sticking point for me. The battery life on my G85 is only decent if i turn the LCD off but in general, i find myself needing to charge the battery after every one or maybe two shooting sessions (defined as a day or so of walking around and shooting pictures intermittently). Also as far as portability, the better m 4/3 cameras are not much more portable than say aps-c and about equal in most aspects i've found, lenses are just a bit smaller, which is nice, zoom lenses considerably so but at the cost of less light gathering, a big loss. Hardly any of the options are pocketable so I end up bringing all the crap anyway.
Image quality is great on many m4/3, but you just don't have the same sensitivity and it's much more difficult to get the angles you need when working in tight spaces.
I'm not sure what you mean by sensitivity and you can get the same angle with M43 as with any other camera if you use the same equivalent focal length.
i use 4/3 for macro , crop for sports, full frame for portrait/landscape.
So do I, but I also use 80 megapixel mode in G9 for landscapes.
I humbly appreciate your opinions. Very well put. I always follow your channel. Thanks for all your great videos.
Thank you, I appreciate your feedback!
Thank you for your insightful and unbiased approach. I really enjoyed it. My 2 cents is that I have owned all sorts of systems and was never married to anyone f them. At the moment, I find Sony FF is the best fit for me and what I do. My only issue with m4/3 is the pricing. They are too expensive for what they offer and the quality they offer. Today, OM-D E-M 1II can be purchased for $1400 which is more to the actual value of the system rather than the $2000 original price.
aside from that, in this day and age, we have fantastic systems with strengths and weaknesses and have the choice to get exactly what we need. There is no barrier to creating great images/videos especially in regards to the hardware. I do not like the versus series either. There is no perfect system and looking for one is useless. Thank you for the great content.
Thank you, Sony FF system is very strong at the moment, and the pricing of the A7 III was also quite aggressive, so they have cough the competition by surprise. Hopefully it will positively affect prices of upcoming cameras.
I don't care about the perfect image quality or the best bokeh. I just love taking picture, whatever the brand.
as a former m43 (Oly) shooter, current Fuji and Sony shooter, I settled mainly om FF Sony as this is only way I can mount vintage lenses (owning 500+ of them). Thanks for this video, very informative
You're welcome, thank you for watching!
Vintage lenses can be mounted on APS-C or M43, just changes the angle of view due to smaller sensors.
A lot depends on available light where you shoot and type of shooting. I shoot over 90% outdoors and I live the southern USA which is very sunny. I don’t really see the advantages to a FF vs the size , weight and cost. I am very happy with crop sensor sizes
Actually when comparing photos with equivalent focal lengths from same distance, and adjusting Aperture to match depth of field, I found that MFT had to be less than half of FF. Example: F/2 on MFT looks more like F/4.5. I still shoot weddings using Canon FF, but have sold off my MFT for personal. Now I have Fuji XT2 as my compromise for travel.
The crop factor is still 2, but M43 shoots 4:3 and FF is 3:2 so horizontal field of view is a bit different.
It will be hard decision for me, because IBIS in a6600 is this same like it is in a73 (when we look for sensor size should be much better, closer to m43 IBIS). For travel/family shooting i dont know which will be better, BIG lenses in aps-c or worse deep of field in m43. I have FF from canon to work so i don't need another FF.
Nicely balanced video. Excellent overview, or summary, of the different form factors.
Thank you!
Probably the best comparison I've seen on RUclips. Eminently sensible. However I'm still torn between sticking with my Olympus or switching to Sony... 😀
Thank you, I appreciate your feedback!
What did you choose eventually? I had the same thought but eventually chose to stick with Olympus, partially for peace of mind but also because when I got the Leica 12-60 I was so mind blown by the quality of even casual pictures that I thought there's no need to change at all.
I'm glad Olympus came out with the EM5 MkIII, I can't wait to be able to afford it!
So much misinformation out there. You nailed the explanation! Many people seem to miss that the total amount of light captured is key, and the same F-number with different sensor sizes can gather only the same amount of light per area, not in total. (as you mentioned @3:10)
What is more important? The Dynamic range of the Sonys or the 10 bit 422 color of the GH5 and the GH5S?
Very good question, but I haven't tested 10 bit on Panasonic yet, since my G9 only shoot 8 bit, but I will test it soon.
The Hybrid Shooter please do. I'd love to see a review on either of the GH5 types
I will make GH5S review soon.
The Hybrid Shooter I'm looking forward to that! 👍
You made a high impact point about respecting people's choices; unfortunately there are many people that don't.
That's right, many people need to validate their decisions, so they don't accept choices of other people.
Not only the content but these pictures in video are utterly amazing! Subbed right away
Thank you, I appreciate your subscription!
Unrelated to this video but something i don't understand: why are mirrorless sensors just left exposed when the camera is turned off? They all have mechanical shutters so why cant it cover the sensor when changing lenses. This is the case with DSLRs as both the shutter and mirror protect the sensor when changing lenses
I would also like to see that issue solved somehow, although dust in the shutter mechanism is probably even worse than dust on the sensor, so that probably won't be a solution.
How about using an optical speed booster on a M4/3 camera using full frame lenses? Would be interesting to know how that changes the game. Would be an interesting video.
Speedboosters can also be used with FF cameras and medium format lenses, so it doesn't really change the game. It is possible that I will make a video about that in the future.
@@TheHybridShooter Please do! I have been looking into a speed booster for my Olympus but until recently the metabones has been way too expensive to be an "experimental" purchase. Thanks for the great channel.
That unfortunately hasn’t changed.
Everything exists for a reason. So choosing which format also gives you trade off.
People just have to figure what are their needs and choose the best suiting format for them.
Excellent synopsis of the various formats - thank you.
Pretty much nails it. But i’m still stuck, I wish panasonic were doing full frame or APSC and I love the GX7 8 9 form factor and ergonomics but MFT pictures don’t have the pop of larger formats, i think that has a lot to do with commonly available lens apertures and dynamic range as it extends into shadow.
There is a lot of compact lenses available for Sony FE, so you might be able to find some portable solution.
Very well said indeed. It confirms that I made the right choice for me. As someone who is not a professional photographer, likes to travel light and mostly does landscapes & architecture photography, the M43 system is great. Having a small and light system is worth a lot to me, and shallow depth of field is generally not desirable for the style of photography I do. But that is not to say that M43 is the right choice for everyone.
Thank you, M43 really is good system for that type of photography.
If money is tight, it's possible now to buy into used gear for all sensor sizes and enjoy the advantages each has. I use full frame, aps-c, a smart phone and even a mirrorless EVF Fuji fixed zoom that's near fifteen years old. Horses for courses...it's all good fun.
What about medium format cams? like Fuji's, Pentax's, Hasselblad's or others? I'm seriously considering bigger sensors to join my micro 4/3 collection (for architecture and design) and I'm equally considering skipping full frame (formerly small format) and go straight to medium format.
I don't see enough difference to justify big price difference and the lens selection of these systems is not very good. That may change with new 100 megapixel sensor, but those cameras will be very expensive.
Nice video, and well said. I have the G9 and stopped using it because it is just too heavy to lug around. I bought into M4/3's because of the size/quality combo and I enjoy shooting with my GX8 more because it is so much lighter and easier to carry. While FF is intriguing, I'd just go MMF if I wanted a bigger sensor.
Thank you, I would also want to try medium format, but there is another price leap from FF, so would probably get some F1.4 FF lenses instead.
July 16 2018
Hi:
Sorry to bother you.
I have these questions about Panasonic Lumix G9.
1. The resolution of my Nikon D750 is 24.3MP and G9 has 20.3MP resolution. So why the image Dimension out of Nikon is: 6016 x 4016 but in G9 the produced RAW image is only: 1990 x 1440 which is considerably way less than what’s supposed to be. Shouldn’t the image in G9 be at least 4000 x 3000?
2. I use the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 12-60mm f/2.8-4 lens. I am aware of the fact that due to the crop factor, 12-60mm becomes 24-120mm (35mm Equivalent). Am I really also getting f5.6 instead of f2.8 at 12mm? So does this mean that I never be at f2.8 in any Micro Four-Thirds Lenses and the sweet spot could be somewhere around 5.6 or larger aperture instead of f8 in many DSLR lenses?
3. With my Lumix G85, I never had this issue with “Ex. Tele Conv.” in Video Mode, but in G9 (Latest Firmware) I do. When I set the Ex. Tele Conv. to “ON” (Please note that I am not talking about the “Digital Zoom” feature), I expect in any 4K video, this feature should be OFF even though in the Menu I activated it. And it should only enlarge the video when I switch over to AVCHD (1080) in order to zoom in. But the G9 keeps the zoom factor even in 4K. So I need to go back to the menu in G9, deactivate Ex. Tele Conv., switch to 1080p then back to Menu, activate Ex. Tele Conv., and finally get back to 4K in order to get rid of the Tele Conv. Zoom effect. What’s going on?
Thanks so much for your time.
1. you need to set picture size to L
2. You are getting what you would get if you used full frame at F5.6
3. G9 uses down-sampling, so it can still crop 4K video a bit.
So: are you saying then that at any given f stop m43 lenses are two stops slower than ff lenses?
I snapped a few low light photos with my m43 camera @2.8/30/iso200 and they actually looked a little brighter on screen than photos shot with an apsc sony @2.8/30/iso200 using a ff lens. What am I missing?
ISO is supposed to compensate for light gathering capabilities of sensors, so you should always get same exposure with same settings regardless of what camera you use. Problem is that manufacturers lie about ISO, so there can be a difference between ISO that you actually use and the value on the screen and another problem can be light transition of you lenses.