I am a M43 shooter. No problem with this content, it's correct. I know for myself, why I am using M43 and not full frame and it is not a budget reason.
All formats are a form of compromise. It’s all about choosing where you are willing to compromise and what you value in your photography. For my personal work I shoot m43 as it’s easy and light to lug around, I like to shoot a lot of bird photography and telephoto landscapes. My 100-300 is a fraction of the size of a common 150-600 lens. However for professional work I use a full frame camera as the image quality is simply better and more so it’s easier to create subject separation for a zoom f2.8 lens on full frame when shooting events. Much more versatile for those jobs. All of them will pump out beautiful images if you know how, just use the tool you work best with!
When i got my first proper Pentax and started to really find out about difference lenses and differences between manufacturers etc - it really dawned me how much there are are people who are doing basically the same what i was doing as kids long ago in pen & paper roleplaying games - spending whole lot of times reading specs and rules, trying to maximaze this or that number to "create the best character" ...only to never actually play the game with those characters before moving on to create the other "even more optimized characters" :D ..so basically spending more attention on thinking about numbers and technicalities than actually doing the thing itself, namely photographer. While im not much of a photographer, i dare to claim that unless you are a very good pro - the equipment youre using doesnt actually make "that much" difference vs actually taking photos and spending time time and effort on the skill of photography. but its sure fun its in own way i suppose, having been trapped in it myself lol.
I thought long and hard two years ago when deciding between FF and 4/3 and finally decided on Olympus. The two deciding factors were long lens price and size and system size. For prints up to 8 x 11, my photos are very sharp. Hand held stabilization also contributed as it allows for slower shutter speeds.
Right you are - the format in which your photos will be printed is, arguably, the main factor. I use PEN EPL-3 for more than a decade now (with a 14-42 mm kit zoom as well as with Nikon F-mount lenses via an adapter). And this is my "everyday/walkabout" camera. Otherwise I use Nikon system - couple of DX (APSC sensor size) DSLRs and, as of recently, Z5 with a Z adapter (which allows me to mount virtually any DSLR or the "older" (manual focusing) F lenses on a Z camera). Why Nikon if PEN does the job? Well, because I have kept a dozen AiS Nikkor lenses purchased somewhere between the years 1980-1990 when I had Nikon FM and F3' and I am absolutely determined to continue using them. All the lenses I've got are of the FF size - even the few "D" and "G" auto-focusing type which I obtained recently - none of them being made specifically for APSC Nikons, although they function perfectly with DX bodies as well as with PEN.
You have 20 megapixels, the same as many fullframe cameras. The 1Ds mentioned is about 11. Keith Cooper (YT) still uses one, and he's used it to make at least one print metres long.
Depends on what you are using it for. For general photography, landscapes, portraits, in studio work, it's hard to beat full frame. But for birds and wildlife, that extra reach of APS-C comes in handy. Even if you have a supertelephoto lens, extra reach is always nice. Of course, if you have a 45 or 60 megapixel full frame you can always crop, but if you have a high megapixel APS C you can also crop, getting you closer yet. For those who cannot afford an expensive professional super telly it is indispensable. For those who can, it can still be helpful when photographing elusive wildlife that is difficult to approach.
I bought a 2220 shutter count Sony A850 DSLR with it's dual cards, dual processors & internal image stabilization just to mount 6 Minolta AF circa '85 lenses. All for less than $CAD1000. My Olympus PEN E PL2 is my pocket M4T option only on the rare days when my full frame is deemed too heavy.
I agree. I have a canon 5d classic. It looks different that the others crop cameras that I used. The image is different. I bought it in 2019 and I absolutely love this camera. I use nifty fifty lense on it.
Very good information about full frame cameras.nut I wanna know which one is best compact camera for landscape or multi purpose many thanks if u will guide me
Completely agree with all your arguments and especially the argument with manufacturers like Samyang, Sigma and Tamron, and funnily enough, today I just got the Tamron 17-28mm.f.2.8, and since I already have the Tamron 28-200mm .f.2.8-5.6 I now have the two lenses I need for my travel kit and they also fit perfectly in my older but still good Sling Bag from Löwepro .... Many greetings from Denmark
excellent review matti, I shoot both full frame & micro four thirds. each has certain advantage in certain situations and I really enjoy shooting both formats. thx for this excellent video zen billings, canada
I have a LUMIX G9 and a useful set of lenses for it that I purchased after watching your videos extolling its virtues. I love it have made excellent images with it while traveling. I also have a Nikon Z7ii with a couple of native lenses. I do not print big enlargements but occasionally I crop an image quite severely. That is the only time that the Nikon produces better images than the LUMIX. I have owned and used good cameras for over sixty years but, while a Hasselblad medium format or a Wisner large formate will produce a “different” and pleasing look, they will not produce a sharper image than either the G9 or the Z7ii, at least in an 8x10 print. I enjoy both of these cameras but if I had to choose just one it would be the LUMIX. I am not taking issue with the points that you make in this video, only to suggest that each photographer’s requirements are different and either format can produce outstanding images.
I agree with your reasoning. For myself a small size/weight are the key factors as most of my photography is done whilst cycling. My Lumix is small and light and I can still take a few extra lenses. For what it's worth some of my best images came from 35mm cameras and cheap ones too. Photos were usually blurred but sometimes it is not about perfect focus and being able to enlarge the image to the size of a table cloth but just being in the right place at the right time with any camera.
Hi Matti. Thanks for the content. Very interesting! I’m from Argentina and as a non speaking English person I wonder how/where did you get such a good English, living abroad may be? Thanks!
Thanks so much. We learn English at school and there are only about 6 millon people who can speak and understand Finnish, so we pretty much have to learn another language😀 Your first language is Spanish and there are about 560 million others who speak that as well😀 I have lived in Calfornia long time ago and I guess that helps too, but I feel I should better by English a lot😀
Excellent and I agree 100%. I am an m43 (Olympus) user for five reasons 1) features/budget (+ no crippled cameras), 2) Size and weight, 3) Choice of lenses and cameras, 4) Excellent quality for my usage (and most usages), 5) Excellent IS. I still have Canon FF lenses from the old time, who know… but I agree they are not suited for digital sensors. The new R6 is appealing because it seems to have a good stabilized sensor what is relatively new for Canon camera. That said my five reasons are still pertinent…
Another excellent video from this Gentleman!!!! In my case, I had always used Full Frame cameras- Yashica TL-Super from the 1960s, a Nikon F2s and a Canon F-1n until about 2015-16 when I started to have problems to source 35mm Color Film. Then, my daughter gave me a Pentax digital camera for me to try and I liked it a lot because it had IBIS and a decent short zoom lens. But I did not fully accepted it. Then I also tested an Olympus MFT, and a Nikon D3100, cameras that my daughter gifted me. All of them were very light cameras and I was able to take many decent pictures. But I was kind of puzzled why I did not fully liked them, and found out it was the perspective and the DOF I was able to obtain with the Full frame and that was lacking in those systems. So I went to a local Photo Store in my city and asked to see if there were full frame digital cameras, and they for sure showed me lots of them, new and used!!! I was so behind the times!!!! There I was able to check on a Nikon D3, a D3X, a D700, some Canon EOS 1DS and 5D/5DII, a Sony 900 and the sort. And after several hours of checking those models, I selected the 5DSII because it had the less actuations, had a 50mm f/1.4 lens attached to it, looked the newest of all of them, and specially, had those three Custom settings C1, C2, and C3. Those were the reasons I got into Full Frame digital. I sold my old film equipment to collector photographers, and was able to fully purchase that Canon 5DII, and a 28-135 USM IS zoom lens that fit the kind of photography I do. And I am very happy because I have always said the camera is just the instrument for your Photography, and the less obstructive it is, the better is the camera. and that Canon fitted my transparency expectations and as a bonus, works for me as three different cameras due to those three settings I mentioned. The only problem I found later was the MP count. My program was able to handle the many megapixels, but was slow at high counts, so I had to shoot at 11 MP instead of the 21, and found my workflow improved a lot, and now that is what I am using all the time. I am not doing any enlargement above 8 x 10, so that is perfect for me. So I personally would never use any other format for my serious photography. Any other smaller format I use is just for casual snapshots and that's it. I am only missing the Nikon 6mm f/2.8 Fish eye I had, but that beast could not be adapted to a newer digital camera, only worked on my Nikon F2s with the mirror lock-up, so I miss it a lot since I sold my Nikon equipment........
Totally agree with your analysis, my chosen M43 is a Olympus EM-1, a wonderful camera; however I have a Nikon D750 that I purchased for not much more than the Olympus, purely for the dull, dismal days of winter here in the UK; again, this is a superb camera that can see in the dark and produces excellent results.
Do you follow OM Systems on RUclips? Gavin Hoey has been making videos in the dark, see his work on the OM 5 announcement. Mike Lane FRPS chose an OM 1 over his Sony A9, for birds in the UK. There's also another wildlife photographer who's' shot birds at ISO 20,000 - he repeated it - and been able to seel the results for publication.
@@oneeyedphotographer Thanks for that John, I'll check that out. The D750 is a bit of a brick and I would love to replace it with something a wee bit more "portable".
FF is better in low light. Many outdoor shots taken on sunny day's, I'm at f/2.8, think shaded areas, ISO 100. Had a 90D, sold it, bought it back and sold it again. Looked into the R5, if I upgrade, it will be Fuji medium format $$$$. My tastes have gone towards wide angle lens. Haven't used the 24-104 hardly at all this year. Those zoom lens are getting to heavy for handheld shooting at my age. IBIS would be nice, less post processing. I'm not willing to pay $4,000 (FF) for just a camera body (R5). Yeah, auto focus would be better, but the 5D IV gets the job done. Ran into someone while out that had this crop sensor Fuji with a fixed prime 24mm (35mm) f/1.8. Nice and compact. That could be fun.
I have Cannon from 2015 with 12 MP. Now I feel that this resolution is not sufficient. I have a 55, 300, wide angle and micro lenses. How should i progress from here? As with common man the budget is limited.
Olen muutaman vuoden kuvannut Canon 5D markII + 40mm f2.8 yhdistelmällä katuvalokuvaa. Mielestäni aivan mahtava yhtälö. Ostin molemmat käytettynä. On mulla pari L-sarjan linssiäkin, varmuuden vuox. Kiitos mielenkiintoisesta sisällöstä, täällä on aina kiva käydä. 👍
I do have MFT (mostly for macro work) and APS-C mirrorless systems (for portability and compact size) but full frame is just too tempting. If only I could get an A7C!
Matti well said as always & while I continue to mostly use MFT--due to cost, size, & weight--I recently picked up a S5, which is being heavily discounted, with a 20-60mm & 50mm f1.8 for less than cost of GH6.
I'm a Panasonic fan, not a Micro-Four-Thirds fan. I love my GX8 because of its great simple usability. Though, I think the S5 is the proper successor for that, so I will upgrade to that once I can.
@@RDMracer Understood & I like Panasonic cameras as well. The late David Thorpe--my favorite photographer on YT along with Matti--said that MFT was good for prints nearly up to A1 size even if FF inherently had better IQ. Thorpe also said he would consider picking up FF again if Panasonic made a model with size of G9. Well the S5 is a bit smaller than the G9 & about as compact as MFT gear with the f1.8 lenses & 20-60mm, so I took a shot.
Thank you for the video. Agree fully with you. I use Canon 5D Classic and 5DII. They perform great tasks for creating nice landscape, cityscape, nightscape and street life photos. However, I also shoot wildlife a lot. For this purpose; I use APS-H and APS-C bodies like 1DIV and 7D.
What do you think about the Panasonic S1r for adapting old lenses? How is the actual usability? Given the many FF mirrorless makes and models available (on the used market) which stands out to you as best for practical, usable adaptation of legacy optics? This something I’ve been considering off and on. I’ve got a bunch of Canon EF, Minolta MD, M42 screw mount, and even a full set of Contax G RF lenses. I’d love to give new life to these old war horses.
I think all S series cameras work really well with legacy lenses and adapters. When I was still a brand ambassador I made a video about that too: ruclips.net/video/jLKqHm2ijzM/видео.html
All true, but I use MFT and the only time I miss FF (which I used to own) is when I have to shoot a moving subject in low light without flash. As for street photography, I now only use my smartphone, which, I believe, is what Cartier Bresson or Capa would use today if they were alive
I have been perfectly happy with my MFT Olympus cameras except for one thing. I have about a dozen old Olympus film camera lenses. I could, of course, get an adapter to use these lenses on my OM-D and Pen cameras but this would effectively double the focal length of all these old lenses. My 18 mm would become a 36 mm etc. Not a disadvantage so much with the telephotos, but I like wide angle lenses a bit more. So I bought a Sony α7II and am quite happy with the results. The Sony with my old manual lenses (mostly prime lenses) is far less convenient to use, so my E-M10 is still my "best" camera!
One of my favorite lenses is the PanaLeica 12-60mm that can be had in almost new condition for around 530 to 550 USD compete. The same focal length roughly for Nikon is 1100 dollars for the 24-120 f4 S lens. The body I use the 12-60 on is usually a GX8 to get the whether sealing and a solid size body to lens wise while still being fairly compact. Other than that I use a GX85 with a PanaLeica 25mm 1.4 or an Olympus E-P5 with the Oly 17mm F1.8 with both smaller bodies in the same bag and a Pana 20mm f1.7 ii tucked in for a middle ground if I can only carry one. Nikon has a solid 40mm f2 now, I have it with a Z5 body. It didn't get a lot of use because basically every reason I bought it for turned out to be kind of bs. Spec wise my three cameras I mostly use are old and low resolution, but for 95% or more if what I do that means nothing. There are photographers capturing insanely good images with Nikon 1 cameras...I could drop 1000usd for a used 24-120 Nikon S lens but I think that 1000 is better used to find opportunities to use the great 12-60 I already have. I can't remember the last time I actually made a print. Probably when I was messing around with massive prints from the GX85, E-P5, and Sony a7iis. With modern processing about the only thing you lack was the ability to crop much as long as you had good glass for the shots. If you're a professional making the money to pay for the gear and don't care about weight, then go for it, but for the rest that's now many true reasons that matter when you step past sheets and hypotheticals.
I used to shoot with the EOS REBEL digital and had a choice of lenses. Although I shoot with M43, I'm regaining an interest in FF, especially for fine art. Thanks for sharing Matti!
How many 24-70 (equivalent) lenses does one photographer need? A large proportion of the huge numbers are duplicates or near duplicates. For my Lumix camera I can get a 24-70 from Lumix and Sigma, and something similar from Leica. For my 6D II, I can get two or three 24-70 lenses from Canon, one from Sigma, one from Tamron maybe one from Tokina. For my Lumix G and Olympus cameras, I can get 7-14 through 100-400.
Hyvää huomenta, Matti. Thank you for the videos "Five reasons" for Full Frame and M43. QUESTION: if one has a very good mobile phone camera, what format would you suggest if you want to get "really better than mobile phone" photos (photos, not videos)? Ystävällisin terveisin, Michael
If you want to get as far from a phone camera as possible, choose the biggest sensor😀 It all really depends on your budget and shooting style. I have yet another video you may want to watch, if you haven't seen it. This may help to clarify thing for you: ruclips.net/video/AJRPR56hZxU/видео.html
@@mattisulanto bigger bigger, and then the camera would not be in my pockewt if I need it. And thansk for the link: just loked at the video (and gave a "like")
@@michael-outdoors What I meant was that if you only need one or two lenses, then even a FF can be very portable. If you need many lenses and portability, you prpbably have to choose MFT. If you don't care about portability, then a FF systems definitely is the way. If you want the ultimate compactness and big image quality, maybe the Ricoh GR3 or GR3x might do the job. There are so many options and variables😀
@@mattisulanto Yes, just checked what the weight and size is if one takes a FF Body and a "travel zooem", for example 24-200mm. Compact and "lichtweight", fits into a small bag
Very well said and to the point! I am currently using a Canon R5 and a Olympus EM5 Mark III so I have the best of the both world. One more point I would like to add is fullframe cameras at this moment is more technologically advance than any crop sensor cameras offering impressive resolution, state of the art autofocus, 8K video capture and much more at a relatively compact build. Fullframe is now offering smaller compact affordable lens options too for example the Canon RF lenses like 16mm, 50mm, 24-105 f4-7.1 and 100-400. Thanks for sharing!
I have E-M1 Mark II and E-M1x cameras, both can do much that the R5 cannot. If I updated to the latest in the line, the OM 1, any advantages of the R5 are marginal.
@@oneeyedphotographer Well, I sold all my R5, MFT cameras, and all its gears and got myself a Leica Q2, fixed lens no need to worry about lens options and such. I also have an A7C for interchangeable lens options, which is paired with a compact Samyang 75mm f1.8. I also have a ZV1, and I am really surprised at how good it is. Well, what I have learned is to keep everything simple and use the gear that you feel comfortable with. To me, it has always been lightweight and best image quality.
1. Depends on the sensor and on your usecase. There are great cropped sensors and mediocre Full Frame Sensors. Full Frame can be a big advantage at night photography though. 2. You can use Full Frame Lenses on APS-C Bodies too, so no, variety is actually worse on Full Frame. 3. That might be true but again, you can use any full frame lens on a cropped body. 4. Smaller Bodies are actually more versatile and Lenses are much lighter than on a Full Frame System 5. Again, you can use every full frame lens on an APS-C Body, not the other way round An advantage of cropped sensors is that they are ...well... cropped. If you're shooting wildlife you can get closer to your subject with the same focal lenght. You're right, at a certain price point full frame is the better option, but cropped sensors are imo still the better bang for the buck solution. For me, there are many other factors that are equally as important as sensor size, like ergonomics, weather resistancy, button placement, tiltable screen...
One reason for not using full frame: too bulky! More and more often, I find that I leave my FF cameras at home when I go on trips. I bring a M4/3 one. I’m 76.
I always appreciate your perspective Matti. I am in a slow hunt for a FF camera to adapt some of my 35mm film lenses from Konica, Contax and Leica M. Other than that the mFT format serves me well primarily for its system compactness, useful when I am out on the trails. Who knows when I do get that FF camera it may change everything. i like all cameras no fan boy here :-)
The Nikon Z and Canon R mount will eventually open up to 3rd party lens companies but we need to understand that those are relatively new mounts and Nikon and Canon has a long way to go to roll out enough lens variations for their mounts like they have with their DSLR mounts. All they are doing is protecting their interest and trying to make some revenue on native lenses first and foremost before cheaper 3rd party versions come in and cut into their lens sales... It's basic proprietary business practice. I went back to FF DSLRs recently for all these reasons you mentioned. Mirrorless tech has excelled and are heavily marketed to phase out DSLRs and that in itself makes it more and more expensive and the cost of DSLR gear is the smart choice for the average to advanced shooter, especially FF systems... more bang for your $, for the price of a Z7II body I got a brand new D850 and a Nikkor 20mm f1.8G with cash left over for a nikon battery grip. The marketing has us thinking rationally sometimes and we as shooters have to take a step back and really analyze our G.A.S., wants and most importantly Need cases. That is what I did and am now selling off six Fuji bodies, nine XF lenses and a couple Sonys and lenses. No real need to have all that in all honesty.
The video seems a bit more like "Five reasons for FF over medium format". Reasons for FF from a MFT user's perspectives are image quality (ISO performance, resolution) and extreme bokeh. That's it. Oh and easier adapting of vintage lenses (no need for "speedboosters"), I'll give you that :P . Just to note, I use both FF and MFT.
Re cheap hiMP bodies, also consider Canon 5DsR. Shocking how cheap now at 50 MP. Zeiss MF lenses for Canon have exquisite IQ, I have F-Distagon 16 (IR modded) in C/Y mount, In EOS mount 21, 25, 35/1.4, Otus 55, Makroplanar 100, and even the MPE65. I only rarely use AF, like the Canon 300/2.8 for BIF. In macro, the larger pixel size at same MP count, makes diffraction problems appear later.
I was surprised to hear Canon and Nikon doesn't allow 3rd party lenses anymore. I have some Tamron lenses for old Canon 500D. In my opinion this is not good direction them to go. I get they want all the monies but thats not always the best way. You had here a very good video. Thanks!
I understand the appeal of micro four thirds systems........especially for people new to photography and/or people who are earning money shooting web content. I am not in either category. I have always preferred heavy cameras, watches, and pens. The weight helps to make me think I got my money's worth and, as a 50 year-old, with the perception of quality. My only dedicated digital still cameras are a couple of Nikon D3's. Even in 2022, the D3 far exceeds my level of photography. Yes, they attract a lot of attention on the street, however, I do not shoot people and in recent years I don't even shoot in urban environments like I used to 7 or 10 years ago. I will shoot them until they stop working, and then, my photography days will be over. At my age, NO WAY I am putting money into lenses for another camera system.
There is a spectrum, on one end is the portability and on the other end is image quality, and you have to pick where on the spectrum your needs lie. Of course that’s also an oversimplification and you may also need to consider the brand and what it offers. The lens ecosystem offered by a new Nikon Z mount vs a mature Sony E mount can be huge even though both are full frame.
Not a canon fan myself however the canon 5DSR 50mp is 1499 which is very low for MP price. Seems that the higher the MP the worse the low light. This was a very good video 👍👍👍👍
@@colmranger If money is no object then a high megapixel camera like Sony a7riv is the best choice for you.61mp for landscape an yet 26mp in crop mode for the reach when it's needed.
All I agree with except for the value. Older full frame cameras have significant drawbacks. a7rii has terrible battery life that makes it almost unusable for a serious shooter, and let's not forget the horrible menus and viewfinder. I won't talk about the DSLR as I guess no one should invest in them anymore unless you already have one. EOS RP is a camera no one should buy imo. Terrible DR and almost unusable unless you're a casual shooter. That leaves us with the modern mirrorless, which is so much super expensive (apart from the Nikon Z5, weirdly affordable). But has anyone checked the prices of the lenses? Apart from low quality fast primes (and f8, f11 Canon teles), the RF and L mount especially would cost you an arm and a leg for their f2.8 and below (for which you bought your full frame in the 1st place). So no. You do indeed get the best quality but you'd pay a lot, I mean a lot for it. So unless you're earning money from your photos, stick with MFT (good APSC, Fuji, is almost as expensive as FF with its lenses too). Happy shooting
Legacy 35mm lenses give better results with a FF camera than with a cropped sensor . The argument of the center performance is not real. There are some technical reasons for that but it is better to try and check. I am a FF and a micro 4/3 user. I recommend using a FF camera ( the first Sony A7 is very good at it for a ridiculous price) with legacy lenses.
Thank you so much for your informative video as usual. Suppose we set Lumix S1 to a smaller size file to more or less match the file size of Lumix G9. We attach a 50mm lens to S1 and a 25mm lens to G9. If we would pixel peep the two pictures side by side (we do not see the entire photos, but we pixel peep), we can safely assume the picture S1 produces is almost unnoticeably, but slightly better because of the lenses/glasses/optics. Stated differently, we can safely assume that the optics of the 25mm lens cannot be 2x better than that of the 50mm lens.
@@mattisulanto Thank you for your response. The resolving power of a lens/glass/optics for a 4x5 film camera is 40 - 60 lines / mm. That of a lens for a 35 mm film camera can be over 100 lines / mm.... since smaller format requires better lens. However practically, in reality, there is a limit. It is practically way too difficult to produce 4x better lens for 35mm film camera. In this case, the resolving power of a lens/glass/optics for a 35 mm camera cannot be 160 - 240 lines / mm.
@@mattisulanto When we look at a catalog, Olympus says that the maximum magnification of M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 30mm F3.5 Macro is 2.5x (35 mm equivalent). That MEANS that the maximum magnification of M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 30mm F3.5 Macro is 1.25x on the sensor.
@@mattisulanto :D. In order for an MFT lens to deliver the same level of image quality as an FF lens does, theoretically, it has to be 2x better, and that probably is not happening in products sold. Having said that though, if you want to have a DG SUMMILUX 9mm F1.7 equivalent lens for your FF camera, how much does it cost.....
The last generation of apsc beat the crap out of the older FF sensors in iso performance and dynamic range.Medim format form and weight now days is about same as some FF counterparts where FF is not close in IQ to the MF output.First commercial FF digital camera was made by Contax.
I think the production of the a7rII has stopped. I always return to my first lens for my a7III, the Tamron 28-75 mm GI. I love the colors and kind of "vintage look" of that lens, compared to the more sterile and neutral Sony lenses I bought when the pandemic hit.
Thanks for sharing. I've been using the G2 version of the Tamron and like it a lot. Many cameras are not in production any more, but you can still buy them second hand as I implied in the video😀
After a year of M43 I bought into APS-C. Loved the images until the limited lens selection slowed me down, so I went with Sony Full Frame. Now I have TOO MANY lenses and only one is actually made by Sony (well, 3 by Zeiss). The Alpha series bodies are as small as most Fuji bodies and with FF lens manufacturers making smaller lenses like the i series Sigma, they are portable enough. And then for large prints, FF with 61mp is where I find happiness. I’m not looking back.
@@mattisulanto Just in Resolution or even with dynamic range? A6500 at least shots in 14bit Raw and has 85pts in DXO Mark. I think the 33MP from a A7IV would be totally enough for me, so there is no reason for A7RIV. The major downside on fullframe is literally the weight, A6500 with my Tamron 17-70 is endurable to carry around.
I dont know.. i compared image quality from my gh5 mft csm to sony a73 footage and i really dont see any advantage for the sony. To me full frame does NOT look better . It IS better in low light but i control my lights. To say full frame has better image quality in general is very misleading
Thanks for your opinion. If you don't like FF and if it doesn't look better to you, it doesn't mean it's not better in terms of dynamic range, high ISO and in most cases also resolution.
Hi Matti, to be bloody honest, the "Fullframe" moniker is the biggest lie & fake from the camera industry, since ever digital. Okay, let me explain that a bit, 36x24mm format, is usually being called "Small Picture Format", because it's the 1:1 translation from german "Kleinbildformat", and it's exactly like that. Why is that? Because into a world, when Large Format and diverse Medium Format (4x5, up to 8x10 large format) the small picture format was considered being inferior, because of the smaller size. Now, forward to 2000 - the CONTAX N1 digital was the worlds #1 36x24mm Sensor digital DSLR, it was being announced into the year 2000, but delayed serveral times, due to issues with the flawed 6 MP Philips Sensor design into short. Not long after this ultra expensive DSLR was being avialable, Canon entered the market with their so called EOS 1Ds, which featured 11 MP onto the 36x24mm Sensor. Not long after that, gear review sites like DPR called this "Fullframe", to name parity with the analogue Film format. Since ever then, we do have this silly "Fullframe" moniker, which literally, basically means nothing - except 36x24mm Sensor size, that is. Literally, every Sensor format does serve 1) a purpose and 2) is being "fullframe", as long as the output isn't being cropped, simply hereby. 3) There are nowadays many Pros, which are using Fujifilm gear (APS-C), or even shooting with the smaller MFT or m43, micro four thirds format, especially with Olympus. (*1) Last, but not least - the industry perfectly managed, to tell the usual, average user, that he always must invest into "Fulframe" gear - because everything else isn't worth it - which is the biggest lie of the photography industry. Yet alone, 36x24mm Sensors do have a 1 to 1 1/3 stop advantage over APS-C/DX in low light, and naturally DoF, but i've seen many excellent pictures from smaller Sensors, in terms of landscape, portrait, etc. Smaller Sensors are totally fine and serving a specific task. (*2) And again, with "FF", needing telelenses get ridiciously expensive, just think about an 400mm F2.8, or 600mm F4 for instance in L quality....unpayable for an amateur, -enthusiast, or non-pro sports shooter, or -wildlife photographer, and/or -birder. Hereby, APS-C and mFT does have it's size advantage especially for these kind of shutterbugs. Each Sensor format does serve a purpose. I'd take always a pro or semi-pro APS-C/DX DSLM/DSLR, vs. a entry level FF setup, with reduced features, say missing weathersealing, direct knobs & dials, etc. kind regards . . . . . . (*1) ruclips.net/video/uEKlEghwpjY/видео.html 6 Years as a professional landscape photographer (*2) ruclips.net/video/PHYidejT3KY/видео.html Crop Sensors vs Full Frame :: Crop Or Crap?
I agree that it's kind of fake and I have said that in some of my previous videos. However, I use it because it's universally understood and I don't know how to refer to it in any other simple way. I also think we should rename the formats today, because so many things have changed since the Kleinbildformat (I can read and understand a bit of German too😀) was invented. Micro Four Thirds would be the new small format, FF would be the new medium format and the anything bigger than FF would be the new large format. At least in digital that would make sense to me and the logic would be the same as with film cameras.
@@mattisulanto Hi Matti, thanks for your reply. Well, since the #1 GFX-50s from Fujifilm announced into 2016, ppl have been spotting about the "small Medium Format, because it's being 44x33mm Sensor size - but the bloody truth is, even Hasselblad had serveral "Medium Format" gear with exactly that type of Sensor size, and Pentax also into their famous 645D and afterwards the 645Z. "FF" gear is nice to have, but like a self build rig, Sensor size doesn't mean anything, same for a PC, when one does look only about the CPU speed, but forget all the rest, hereby quality of the mainboard, slots being avialable for the DIMMs, PCIe cards, quality and options of the Bios, PSU, ATX Case, SSD, etc...the list is long. :) One must look for the whole package, not the Sensor size yet alone is relevant, which counts. For instance, a typical beginners setup - EOS RP with the 24-105 STM, underdesigned lens, way slow aperture at the teleend, etc. I'd prefer an X-S10, X-H1 with 16-55/2.8 hereby anytime, just for example. It depends one what someone is looking for. Also i must admit, for a very short amount of time (1 week) one could have bought that Canon combo for just 899 EUR, serveral weeks ago here into germany. :-) For the price, okay. But into the end, lots of IQ compromises...anyway, i wish a great sunday. greetings
The reason why i think all the companies except for Olympus and Fujifilm should just stick with full-frame. Why? With lesser people buying full fledged cameras it is just shooting one's own foot by splitting the customer base between Full Frame and APS-C and then charging tremendous amount of money for different lenses built for different sensor size. Sure, APS-C bodies can use full frame lenses but that would only reduce the number of user base to buy the full frame lenses and increase price for the whole market. If the price get higher, lesser people would buy cameras. It is already so bad as it is. Going forward when smartphones get more sophisticated, the reasons for people to upgrade will be lesser.
@@mattisulanto sorry, i mean i'm your folower since , ...about few years. My post was in "retoric" way is not my filosofy, contrary i mean it seems is yours.
Only 1 reason for me, if ever. Huge prints. Everything else, mft can do perfectly 😊 imagine photo walk with a fullframe and 200-800mm lens 😅 my back made sounds just typing it 😅 I had 5dmk4 and rp though.
Thanks for sharing. Well, that kind of a photo walk is rather imaginary and not likely a real world scenario😀 Of course, if you want the smallest size MFT is it. A phone camera is even smaller😀
@@mattisulanto I use the tg-6 instead of my phone 😁 I'm kind of looking for a good belt bag for my phone, so I don't need to carry it in my chest pocket or pants. Actually kind of thinking about the Samsung galaxy flip 4, because it can be folded small and pocket friendly 😅 or just a smart watch with lte, so I can use that for calls if ever. On photo walks, the phone is actually just deadweight 😬
the only reason they make apsc camera was to sale us lents is not enof you buy the body , you must get also the new wild angle for you camera , than become useless once you get a full frame ,
Went thru the several comments and it seems like the majority of the commenters use both the M43 and FF. I used APSC (Sony and Canon) for several years and recently bought the Sony A7Riii and I have totally stopped using the APSC cameras. The image quality is that good (for landscape photography). I have never used the Micro Four Third.
As someone who still shoot with some Nikon film bodies (F2, Nikkormat, F501, etc), full frame is simply logical for me. Why? Not about bokeh, dynamic range, etc, but "no crop". Take example my favourite 50mm lens. On APSC cameras it gives perspective roughly equivalent to 75-80mm and on M43 is... 100-ish (due to smaller image sensor size). Nothing personal against those smaller cameras, in fact I enjoy using them. Just not a fan of using big lenses on smaller bodies. That's how physics works: bigger image sensor means bigger lens If I want to use APSC or M43 camera, then will stick to their native lenses, not using FF lenses. And since Fuji makes medium format more affordable, I'm started to question how long I'm gonna stay in FF club? I mean if you want to go big, then skip FF and jump into MF instead. But if you want smaller package, pick APSC or M43 :D
Nice video and great reasons to get the FF, but as about the 3-rd party lens makers - you are simply NOT wright !!! I have a Nikon D750 and all of my great lenses, which I got and preserved during the time-test, are made by Tamron !!! Cheaper, better built and with more quality than the more expensive natural lenses. Sigma does them too - but the operation of controls there is simply made for Canon users, while Tamron keeps the natural operation for Nikon-used guys ...
Thanks for sharing. I don't know exactly which part of the video you are referring to. Of course there are hundreds of third party (D)SLR lenses for every camera, but so far there are not many third party native AF lenses for mirrorless Nikon, or Canon. However, that is probably going to change for Nikon soon.
If you don't print larger than than A4 - there is no reason for FF. For wildelifers who don't shoot to print A4+ - there is no reason for FF. For 99% amateurs FF makes little to no sense.
Still don't see the appeal of Full Frame. The market even suggest it's a pretty worthless format unless you're shooting sports, action, photojournalism or specialty work such as a fine art gallery or astrophotography. Fine art you should buy a Medium Format Film camera (hard to beat the lenses and real +150mp for under $2k). The top sports camera's are the only FF cameras I see as worth the purchase. Specialty work like astrophotography is fully understandable. Even these hybrid full frame video camera's with a bagillion megapixels still can't beat an old camera with under 7mp and shoots 2.6k video upscaled to 3.6k not 4k 🤣 🤷🏾♂️ (Arri Alexa) The GH series cameras are awesome for video in most cases better than larger sensors and way cheaper.
Full frame is a worthless format??? Are we counting the thousands, dare I say millions of dollars of income made by photographers shooting full frame??
@@Dustyphoto915 Each format has made billions in terms of professionally produced photographic work. What's your point? Full Frame digital has made the least money of any digital format sensor size. Film was replaced by APS-C and smaller digital sensors not Full Frame. What predated APS-C vs Full Frame today was 35mm vs Medium Format film. The only reason professional photographers today settled on Full Frame is due to cost and due to manufacturers up selling to enthusiast. Give it a thought, smaller shutter's can move faster than larger shutters, smaller sensors can read faster than larger sensors yet APS-C camera's when Full Frame digital was introduced were downgraded (Loss Leader). The obvious it's depth of field, no. I mentioned the professions it's for. For everyone else it's pointless when the difference is taking a few steps back. It's not like 110 (MFT) vs 35mm. Professionals shot medium format or large format mostly which you're making a similar argument for Full Frame. If Medium Format digital cost the same as Full Frame which do you think would sell more? Right now it's getting worse for Full Frame b/c the pixel pitch is nearly the same size of Smartphone photosites and medium format prices are coming down. Hasselblad just announced today or yesterday the X2D. Go take a look. Fast AF, built-in SSD, 15stops of DNR, real 16bit color, 100mp, for $8k.
Thanks, but I must respectfully disagree, especially with regard to "IQ." I challenge you to shoot the same scenes with multiple different cameras, process them to optimize the images, and print them any size. Without knowing which prints came from which camera, I doubt many people would be able to tell any difference, and certainly wouldn't automatically gravitate toward the larger-format images (especially at an appropriate viewing distance). Also, as you point out, newer lenses are generally optically superior to "legacy" lenses and you can get great approximations of "vintage looks" (as well as background blur, which is easy to get in the field) in post. The main problem is when you get to longer/faster lenses, where portability/discretion can be an issue. There's certainly nothing "wrong" with any particular format, but the only reason "FF" or APS-C exists is precisely for marketing purposes--CaNikon knew they'd have trouble selling bodies to all of us 35mm SLR users if it meant buying a whole new set of lenses. I'm glad I waited to go from film to digital and only bought into a digital system when the G9 became available. I was all set to get a Sony a7iii (with the 24-105 and 100-400 plus a 2x TC), but the bulk of the big lens raised questions about portability and I like to limit tripod use. My G9 system covers 16-800 efl (plus macro--the Oly 60mm is awesome) and is much smaller and lighter (not the body, but I find the a7 body too small anyway, plus Lumix has superior ergo). There are good reasons MFT is the most popular format in gear-conscious Japan. Do you still use your G9 (or the FZ1000 I saw in your video about how changing systems makes no sense)?
That blind print test is a bit besides the point. I think the viewer should not need to think about the gear the photographer used. The photographer should choose the camera-lens combo that delivers the results the photographer wants. Then the viewer either likes the final photo or doesn't like. If the viewer starts to wonder about the photographer's camera there is something wrong with the photo. I have another video about why MFT is great. I still have Panasonic, both FF and MFT.
@@mattisulanto That's what I was trying to say--few people know or care what gear was used to make the image and ink droplets can only get so small and paper texture can only show a certain level of detail, so it doesn't matter much what camera you use most of the time. I agree with your statement--whatever works for the photographer...
I am a M43 shooter. No problem with this content, it's correct. I know for myself, why I am using M43 and not full frame and it is not a budget reason.
Thanks for sharing.
All formats are a form of compromise. It’s all about choosing where you are willing to compromise and what you value in your photography.
For my personal work I shoot m43 as it’s easy and light to lug around, I like to shoot a lot of bird photography and telephoto landscapes. My 100-300 is a fraction of the size of a common 150-600 lens.
However for professional work I use a full frame camera as the image quality is simply better and more so it’s easier to create subject separation for a zoom f2.8 lens on full frame when shooting events. Much more versatile for those jobs.
All of them will pump out beautiful images if you know how, just use the tool you work best with!
When i got my first proper Pentax and started to really find out about difference lenses and differences between manufacturers etc - it really dawned me how much there are are people who are doing basically the same what i was doing as kids long ago in pen & paper roleplaying games - spending whole lot of times reading specs and rules, trying to maximaze this or that number to "create the best character" ...only to never actually play the game with those characters before moving on to create the other "even more optimized characters" :D
..so basically spending more attention on thinking about numbers and technicalities than actually doing the thing itself, namely photographer. While im not much of a photographer, i dare to claim that unless you are a very good pro - the equipment youre using doesnt actually make "that much" difference vs actually taking photos and spending time time and effort on the skill of photography.
but its sure fun its in own way i suppose, having been trapped in it myself lol.
Thanks for sharing your insights.
I thought long and hard two years ago when deciding between FF and 4/3 and finally decided on Olympus. The two deciding factors were long lens price and size and system size. For prints up to 8 x 11, my photos are very sharp. Hand held stabilization also contributed as it allows for slower shutter speeds.
Thanks for sharing.
Right you are - the format in which your photos will be printed is, arguably, the main factor. I use PEN EPL-3 for more than a decade now (with a 14-42 mm kit zoom as well as with Nikon F-mount lenses via an adapter). And this is my "everyday/walkabout" camera. Otherwise I use Nikon system - couple of DX (APSC sensor size) DSLRs and, as of recently, Z5 with a Z adapter (which allows me to mount virtually any DSLR or the "older" (manual focusing) F lenses on a Z camera). Why Nikon if PEN does the job? Well, because I have kept a dozen AiS Nikkor lenses purchased somewhere between the years 1980-1990 when I had Nikon FM and F3' and I am absolutely determined to continue using them. All the lenses I've got are of the FF size - even the few "D" and "G" auto-focusing type which I obtained recently - none of them being made specifically for APSC Nikons, although they function perfectly with DX bodies as well as with PEN.
You have 20 megapixels, the same as many fullframe cameras. The 1Ds mentioned is about 11. Keith Cooper (YT) still uses one, and he's used it to make at least one print metres long.
Depends on what you are using it for. For general photography, landscapes, portraits, in studio work, it's hard to beat full frame. But for birds and wildlife, that extra reach of APS-C comes in handy. Even if you have a supertelephoto lens, extra reach is always nice. Of course, if you have a 45 or 60 megapixel full frame you can always crop, but if you have a high megapixel APS C you can also crop, getting you closer yet. For those who cannot afford an expensive professional super telly it is indispensable. For those who can, it can still be helpful when photographing elusive wildlife that is difficult to approach.
One of the wildlife photographers I follow sold his A9, preferring an OM 1.
Mike Lane FRPS
I bought a 2220 shutter count Sony A850 DSLR with it's dual cards, dual processors & internal image stabilization just to mount 6 Minolta AF circa '85 lenses. All for less than
$CAD1000. My Olympus PEN E PL2 is my pocket M4T option only on the rare days when my full frame is deemed too heavy.
Thanks. The A850 is a nice camera.
I agree. I have a canon 5d classic. It looks different that the others crop cameras that I used. The image is different. I bought it in 2019 and I absolutely love this camera. I use nifty fifty lense on it.
Thanks.
Like the Nikon D700, they are still well-known cameras for the quality and textures and colors of their images.
Very good information about full frame cameras.nut I wanna know which one is best compact camera for landscape or multi purpose many thanks if u will guide me
Thanks. My favorite would be the Sony RX100VA.
Completely agree with all your arguments and especially the argument with manufacturers like Samyang, Sigma and Tamron, and funnily enough, today I just got the Tamron 17-28mm.f.2.8, and since I already have the Tamron 28-200mm .f.2.8-5.6 I now have the two lenses I need for my travel kit and they also fit perfectly in my older but still good Sling Bag from Löwepro ....
Many greetings from Denmark
Thanks so much for watching and sharing your set up.
excellent review matti, I shoot both full frame & micro four thirds. each has certain advantage in certain situations and I really enjoy shooting both formats. thx for this excellent video zen billings, canada
Thanks, thanks!
I remember freaking out over what Sensor size to use im so glad I chose FF
I have a LUMIX G9 and a useful set of lenses for it that I purchased after watching your videos extolling its virtues. I love it have made excellent images with it while traveling. I also have a Nikon Z7ii with a couple of native lenses. I do not print big enlargements but occasionally I crop an image quite severely. That is the only time that the Nikon produces better images than the LUMIX. I have owned and used good cameras for over sixty years but, while a Hasselblad medium format or a Wisner large formate will produce a “different” and pleasing look, they will not produce a sharper image than either the G9 or the Z7ii, at least in an 8x10 print. I enjoy both of these cameras but if I had to choose just one it would be the LUMIX. I am not taking issue with the points that you make in this video, only to suggest that each photographer’s requirements are different and either format can produce outstanding images.
Thanks for sharing your experiences.
I agree with your reasoning. For myself a small size/weight are the key factors as most of my photography is done whilst cycling. My Lumix is small and light and I can still take a few extra lenses. For what it's worth some of my best images came from 35mm cameras and cheap ones too. Photos were usually blurred but sometimes it is not about perfect focus and being able to enlarge the image to the size of a table cloth but just being in the right place at the right time with any camera.
I look forward to the 5 reasons to use medium format next.
I can't come up with five reasons for that😅 Or maybe...
Can medium format even be used for astrophotography? Wildlife is a no-go 😅
@@mattisulanto I'm sure you can 👍 come up with 5 reasons! And then 5 reasons for APSC to round it out nicely ☺️
It’s always a great day when you post a video.
Thank you😀
Hi Matti. Thanks for the content. Very interesting! I’m from Argentina and as a non speaking English person I wonder how/where did you get such a good English, living abroad may be? Thanks!
Thanks so much. We learn English at school and there are only about 6 millon people who can speak and understand Finnish, so we pretty much have to learn another language😀 Your first language is Spanish and there are about 560 million others who speak that as well😀 I have lived in Calfornia long time ago and I guess that helps too, but I feel I should better by English a lot😀
Excellent and I agree 100%. I am an m43 (Olympus) user for five reasons 1) features/budget (+ no crippled cameras), 2) Size and weight, 3) Choice of lenses and cameras, 4) Excellent quality for my usage (and most usages), 5) Excellent IS. I still have Canon FF lenses from the old time, who know… but I agree they are not suited for digital sensors. The new R6 is appealing because it seems to have a good stabilized sensor what is relatively new for Canon camera. That said my five reasons are still pertinent…
Thanks for sharing.
Another excellent video from this Gentleman!!!! In my case, I had always used Full Frame cameras- Yashica TL-Super from the 1960s, a Nikon F2s and a Canon F-1n until about 2015-16 when I started to have problems to source 35mm Color Film. Then, my daughter gave me a Pentax digital camera for me to try and I liked it a lot because it had IBIS and a decent short zoom lens. But I did not fully accepted it. Then I also tested an Olympus MFT, and a Nikon D3100, cameras that my daughter gifted me. All of them were very light cameras and I was able to take many decent pictures. But I was kind of puzzled why I did not fully liked them, and found out it was the perspective and the DOF I was able to obtain with the Full frame and that was lacking in those systems. So I went to a local Photo Store in my city and asked to see if there were full frame digital cameras, and they for sure showed me lots of them, new and used!!! I was so behind the times!!!! There I was able to check on a Nikon D3, a D3X, a D700, some Canon EOS 1DS and 5D/5DII, a Sony 900 and the sort. And after several hours of checking those models, I selected the 5DSII because it had the less actuations, had a 50mm f/1.4 lens attached to it, looked the newest of all of them, and specially, had those three Custom settings C1, C2, and C3. Those were the reasons I got into Full Frame digital. I sold my old film equipment to collector photographers, and was able to fully purchase that Canon 5DII, and a 28-135 USM IS zoom lens that fit the kind of photography I do. And I am very happy because I have always said the camera is just the instrument for your Photography, and the less obstructive it is, the better is the camera. and that Canon fitted my transparency expectations and as a bonus, works for me as three different cameras due to those three settings I mentioned. The only problem I found later was the MP count. My program was able to handle the many megapixels, but was slow at high counts, so I had to shoot at 11 MP instead of the 21, and found my workflow improved a lot, and now that is what I am using all the time. I am not doing any enlargement above 8 x 10, so that is perfect for me. So I personally would never use any other format for my serious photography. Any other smaller format I use is just for casual snapshots and that's it. I am only missing the Nikon 6mm f/2.8 Fish eye I had, but that beast could not be adapted to a newer digital camera, only worked on my Nikon F2s with the mirror lock-up, so I miss it a lot since I sold my Nikon equipment........
Thanks for sharing your story.
Totally agree with your analysis, my chosen M43 is a Olympus EM-1, a wonderful camera; however I have a Nikon D750 that I purchased for not much more than the Olympus, purely for the dull, dismal days of winter here in the UK; again, this is a superb camera that can see in the dark and produces excellent results.
Thanks for sharing. I can relate to those dull dark winter days perfectly😀
Do you follow OM Systems on RUclips? Gavin Hoey has been making videos in the dark, see his work on the OM 5 announcement. Mike Lane FRPS chose an OM 1 over his Sony A9, for birds in the UK. There's also another wildlife photographer who's' shot birds at ISO 20,000 - he repeated it - and been able to seel the results for publication.
@@oneeyedphotographer Thanks for that John, I'll check that out. The D750 is a bit of a brick and I would love to replace it with something a wee bit more "portable".
FF is better in low light. Many outdoor shots taken on sunny day's, I'm at f/2.8, think shaded areas, ISO 100. Had a 90D, sold it, bought it back and sold it again. Looked into the R5, if I upgrade, it will be Fuji medium format $$$$. My tastes have gone towards wide angle lens. Haven't used the 24-104 hardly at all this year. Those zoom lens are getting to heavy for handheld shooting at my age. IBIS would be nice, less post processing. I'm not willing to pay $4,000 (FF) for just a camera body (R5). Yeah, auto focus would be better, but the 5D IV gets the job done. Ran into someone while out that had this crop sensor Fuji with a fixed prime 24mm (35mm) f/1.8. Nice and compact. That could be fun.
I have Cannon from 2015 with 12 MP. Now I feel that this resolution is not sufficient. I have
a 55, 300, wide angle and micro lenses.
How should i progress from here? As with common man the budget is limited.
I don't know what and how you photograph, but if you don't want to spend a lot of money, you should look for another Canon with more pixels.
Good video, I hope M43 partisans will not attempt to burn your for heresy ! I support your journey to photography diversity !
Thanks. M43 partisans😅 I hope not.
Olen muutaman vuoden kuvannut Canon 5D markII + 40mm f2.8 yhdistelmällä katuvalokuvaa. Mielestäni aivan mahtava yhtälö. Ostin molemmat käytettynä. On mulla pari L-sarjan linssiäkin, varmuuden vuox.
Kiitos mielenkiintoisesta sisällöstä, täällä on aina kiva käydä. 👍
Kiitos käynnistä😀
vintage for aesthetics, modern for quality like a lot of things
I do have MFT (mostly for macro work) and APS-C mirrorless systems (for portability and compact size) but full frame is just too tempting. If only I could get an A7C!
Buy one! It’s only money😅
Matti well said as always & while I continue to mostly use MFT--due to cost, size, & weight--I recently picked up a S5, which is being heavily discounted, with a 20-60mm & 50mm f1.8 for less than cost of GH6.
Thanks😀
I'm a Panasonic fan, not a Micro-Four-Thirds fan. I love my GX8 because of its great simple usability. Though, I think the S5 is the proper successor for that, so I will upgrade to that once I can.
@@RDMracer Understood & I like Panasonic cameras as well. The late David Thorpe--my favorite photographer on YT along with Matti--said that MFT was good for prints nearly up to A1 size even if FF inherently had better IQ. Thorpe also said he would consider picking up FF again if Panasonic made a model with size of G9. Well the S5 is a bit smaller than the G9 & about as compact as MFT gear with the f1.8 lenses & 20-60mm, so I took a shot.
Thank you for the video. Agree fully with you. I use Canon 5D Classic and 5DII. They perform great tasks for creating nice landscape, cityscape, nightscape and street life photos.
However, I also shoot wildlife a lot. For this purpose; I use APS-H and APS-C bodies like 1DIV and 7D.
Thanks for sharing.
What do you think about the Panasonic S1r for adapting old lenses? How is the actual usability?
Given the many FF mirrorless makes and models available (on the used market) which stands out to you as best for practical, usable adaptation of legacy optics?
This something I’ve been considering off and on. I’ve got a bunch of Canon EF, Minolta MD, M42 screw mount, and even a full set of Contax G RF lenses. I’d love to give new life to these old war horses.
I think all S series cameras work really well with legacy lenses and adapters. When I was still a brand ambassador I made a video about that too: ruclips.net/video/jLKqHm2ijzM/видео.html
All true, but I use MFT and the only time I miss FF (which I used to own) is when I have to shoot a moving subject in low light without flash. As for street photography, I now only use my smartphone, which, I believe, is what Cartier Bresson or Capa would use today if they were alive
Not to forget the L-mount-alliance with all these nice Sigma-lenses for Panasonic S and "Laika" SL!
I have been perfectly happy with my MFT Olympus cameras except for one thing. I have about a dozen old Olympus film camera lenses. I could, of course, get an adapter to use these lenses on my OM-D and Pen cameras but this would effectively double the focal length of all these old lenses. My 18 mm would become a 36 mm etc. Not a disadvantage so much with the telephotos, but I like wide angle lenses a bit more. So I bought a Sony α7II and am quite happy with the results. The Sony with my old manual lenses (mostly prime lenses) is far less convenient to use, so my E-M10 is still my "best" camera!
Great video! I love the colors out of the old Nikon's!
Thanks a lot!
One of my favorite lenses is the PanaLeica 12-60mm that can be had in almost new condition for around 530 to 550 USD compete. The same focal length roughly for Nikon is 1100 dollars for the 24-120 f4 S lens. The body I use the 12-60 on is usually a GX8 to get the whether sealing and a solid size body to lens wise while still being fairly compact. Other than that I use a GX85 with a PanaLeica 25mm 1.4 or an Olympus E-P5 with the Oly 17mm F1.8 with both smaller bodies in the same bag and a Pana 20mm f1.7 ii tucked in for a middle ground if I can only carry one.
Nikon has a solid 40mm f2 now, I have it with a Z5 body. It didn't get a lot of use because basically every reason I bought it for turned out to be kind of bs. Spec wise my three cameras I mostly use are old and low resolution, but for 95% or more if what I do that means nothing. There are photographers capturing insanely good images with Nikon 1 cameras...I could drop 1000usd for a used 24-120 Nikon S lens but I think that 1000 is better used to find opportunities to use the great 12-60 I already have.
I can't remember the last time I actually made a print. Probably when I was messing around with massive prints from the GX85, E-P5, and Sony a7iis. With modern processing about the only thing you lack was the ability to crop much as long as you had good glass for the shots.
If you're a professional making the money to pay for the gear and don't care about weight, then go for it, but for the rest that's now many true reasons that matter when you step past sheets and hypotheticals.
I used to shoot with the EOS REBEL digital and had a choice of lenses. Although I shoot with M43, I'm regaining an interest in FF, especially for fine art. Thanks for sharing Matti!
Thanks.
How many 24-70 (equivalent) lenses does one photographer need? A large proportion of the huge numbers are duplicates or near duplicates. For my Lumix camera I can get a 24-70 from Lumix and Sigma, and something similar from Leica. For my 6D II, I can get two or three 24-70 lenses from Canon, one from Sigma, one from Tamron maybe one from Tokina.
For my Lumix G and Olympus cameras, I can get 7-14 through 100-400.
Hyvää huomenta, Matti. Thank you for the videos "Five reasons" for Full Frame and M43. QUESTION: if one has a very good mobile phone camera, what format would you suggest if you want to get "really better than mobile phone" photos (photos, not videos)? Ystävällisin terveisin, Michael
If you want to get as far from a phone camera as possible, choose the biggest sensor😀 It all really depends on your budget and shooting style. I have yet another video you may want to watch, if you haven't seen it. This may help to clarify thing for you: ruclips.net/video/AJRPR56hZxU/видео.html
@@mattisulanto bigger bigger, and then the camera would not be in my pockewt if I need it. And thansk for the link: just loked at the video (and gave a "like")
@@michael-outdoors What I meant was that if you only need one or two lenses, then even a FF can be very portable. If you need many lenses and portability, you prpbably have to choose MFT. If you don't care about portability, then a FF systems definitely is the way. If you want the ultimate compactness and big image quality, maybe the Ricoh GR3 or GR3x might do the job. There are so many options and variables😀
@@mattisulanto thanks für the details 🙂
@@mattisulanto Yes, just checked what the weight and size is if one takes a FF Body and a "travel zooem", for example 24-200mm. Compact and "lichtweight", fits into a small bag
Very well said and to the point! I am currently using a Canon R5 and a Olympus EM5 Mark III so I have the best of the both world. One more point I would like to add is fullframe cameras at this moment is more technologically advance than any crop sensor cameras offering impressive resolution, state of the art autofocus, 8K video capture and much more at a relatively compact build. Fullframe is now offering smaller compact affordable lens options too for example the Canon RF lenses like 16mm, 50mm, 24-105 f4-7.1 and 100-400. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for sharing as well😀
@@mattisulanto I did a comparision on using these systems. Feel free to watch it here: ruclips.net/video/NgjgAt-IpkE/видео.html
I have E-M1 Mark II and E-M1x cameras, both can do much that the R5 cannot. If I updated to the latest in the line, the OM 1, any advantages of the R5 are marginal.
@@oneeyedphotographer Well, I sold all my R5, MFT cameras, and all its gears and got myself a Leica Q2, fixed lens no need to worry about lens options and such. I also have an A7C for interchangeable lens options, which is paired with a compact Samyang 75mm f1.8. I also have a ZV1, and I am really surprised at how good it is. Well, what I have learned is to keep everything simple and use the gear that you feel comfortable with. To me, it has always been lightweight and best image quality.
1. Depends on the sensor and on your usecase. There are great cropped sensors and mediocre Full Frame Sensors. Full Frame can be a big advantage at night photography though.
2. You can use Full Frame Lenses on APS-C Bodies too, so no, variety is actually worse on Full Frame.
3. That might be true but again, you can use any full frame lens on a cropped body.
4. Smaller Bodies are actually more versatile and Lenses are much lighter than on a Full Frame System
5. Again, you can use every full frame lens on an APS-C Body, not the other way round
An advantage of cropped sensors is that they are ...well... cropped. If you're shooting wildlife you can get closer to your subject with the same focal lenght.
You're right, at a certain price point full frame is the better option, but cropped sensors are imo still the better bang for the buck solution.
For me, there are many other factors that are equally as important as sensor size, like ergonomics, weather resistancy, button placement, tiltable screen...
Thanks for your insights.
I’m staying with my Sony apsc camera as you recommended not to change systems (very expensive) in one of your videos.
I have some Canon EF lenses. I got a Canon M6 mark II and a viltrox speed booster. I really like the results I get with the extra stop of light.
Thanks for sharing.
With value, it depends on what lenses you use. For Sport and Wildlife with long lenses, you cannot buy a fast long tom without shelling out thousands.
One reason for not using full frame: too bulky! More and more often, I find that I leave my FF cameras at home when I go on trips. I bring a M4/3 one. I’m 76.
Thanks for sharing.
I always appreciate your perspective Matti. I am in a slow hunt for a FF camera to adapt some of my 35mm film lenses from Konica, Contax and Leica M. Other than that the mFT format serves me well primarily for its system compactness, useful when I am out on the trails. Who knows when I do get that FF camera it may change everything. i like all cameras no fan boy here :-)
Thanks. All cameras are good, I very much agree😀
I have a 7Artisans fisheye lens. It is actually very good quality. It is a great value for the price.
Thanks for sharing.
The Nikon Z and Canon R mount will eventually open up to 3rd party lens companies but we need to understand that those are relatively new mounts and Nikon and Canon has a long way to go to roll out enough lens variations for their mounts like they have with their DSLR mounts. All they are doing is protecting their interest and trying to make some revenue on native lenses first and foremost before cheaper 3rd party versions come in and cut into their lens sales... It's basic proprietary business practice.
I went back to FF DSLRs recently for all these reasons you mentioned. Mirrorless tech has excelled and are heavily marketed to phase out DSLRs and that in itself makes it more and more expensive and the cost of DSLR gear is the smart choice for the average to advanced shooter, especially FF systems... more bang for your $, for the price of a Z7II body I got a brand new D850 and a Nikkor 20mm f1.8G with cash left over for a nikon battery grip.
The marketing has us thinking rationally sometimes and we as shooters have to take a step back and really analyze our G.A.S., wants and most importantly Need cases. That is what I did and am now selling off six Fuji bodies, nine XF lenses and a couple Sonys and lenses. No real need to have all that in all honesty.
My Tamron 45mm F/1.8 SP Di VC USD works on my Nikon full frame bodies with no adapter needed. The box reads "For Nikon". 😊
That's good to hear.
When looking at the image in viewfinder, full frame is large and affords easier composition,
The video seems a bit more like "Five reasons for FF over medium format". Reasons for FF from a MFT user's perspectives are image quality (ISO performance, resolution) and extreme bokeh. That's it. Oh and easier adapting of vintage lenses (no need for "speedboosters"), I'll give you that :P . Just to note, I use both FF and MFT.
Thanks for sharing. You can interpret the video the way like😀 I think I mentioned those same reasons you mention in your comment.
Re cheap hiMP bodies, also consider Canon 5DsR. Shocking how cheap now at 50 MP. Zeiss MF lenses for Canon have exquisite IQ, I have F-Distagon 16 (IR modded) in C/Y mount, In EOS mount 21, 25, 35/1.4, Otus 55, Makroplanar 100, and even the MPE65. I only rarely use AF, like the Canon 300/2.8 for BIF. In macro, the larger pixel size at same MP count, makes diffraction problems appear later.
Took the same photo with a Fuji X10 then a Nikon D90 the Nikon was far superior edge to edge and picked up far more detail.
I was surprised to hear Canon and Nikon doesn't allow 3rd party lenses anymore. I have some Tamron lenses for old Canon 500D. In my opinion this is not good direction them to go. I get they want all the monies but thats not always the best way. You had here a very good video. Thanks!
Canon does not allow third party lenses for their mirrorless RF lineup. Nikon apparently now allows third party lenses for their mirrorless Z lineup.
@@mattisulanto Thank you for clarification. 👍
I understand the appeal of micro four thirds systems........especially for people new to photography and/or people who are earning money shooting web content. I am not in either category. I have always preferred heavy cameras, watches, and pens. The weight helps to make me think I got my money's worth and, as a 50 year-old, with the perception of quality. My only dedicated digital still cameras are a couple of Nikon D3's. Even in 2022, the D3 far exceeds my level of photography. Yes, they attract a lot of attention on the street, however, I do not shoot people and in recent years I don't even shoot in urban environments like I used to 7 or 10 years ago. I will shoot them until they stop working, and then, my photography days will be over. At my age, NO WAY I am putting money into lenses for another camera system.
There is a spectrum, on one end is the portability and on the other end is image quality, and you have to pick where on the spectrum your needs lie.
Of course that’s also an oversimplification and you may also need to consider the brand and what it offers. The lens ecosystem offered by a new Nikon Z mount vs a mature Sony E mount can be huge even though both are full frame.
Thanks, that is very true.
Not a canon fan myself however the canon 5DSR 50mp is 1499 which is very low for MP price. Seems that the higher the MP the worse the low light. This was a very good video 👍👍👍👍
Thanks for watching. High megapixels has almost nothing to do with the low light performance.
I'm into landscape and wildlife. I need to purchase soon any advice please?
What advice exactly?
@@mattisulanto full frame camera? Some say cropped better for reach for wildlife but I like optimum image quality
@@colmranger If money is no object then a high megapixel camera like Sony a7riv is the best choice for you.61mp for landscape an yet 26mp in crop mode for the reach when it's needed.
All I agree with except for the value.
Older full frame cameras have significant drawbacks. a7rii has terrible battery life that makes it almost unusable for a serious shooter, and let's not forget the horrible menus and viewfinder. I won't talk about the DSLR as I guess no one should invest in them anymore unless you already have one.
EOS RP is a camera no one should buy imo. Terrible DR and almost unusable unless you're a casual shooter.
That leaves us with the modern mirrorless, which is so much super expensive (apart from the Nikon Z5, weirdly affordable).
But has anyone checked the prices of the lenses? Apart from low quality fast primes (and f8, f11 Canon teles), the RF and L mount especially would cost you an arm and a leg for their f2.8 and below (for which you bought your full frame in the 1st place).
So no. You do indeed get the best quality but you'd pay a lot, I mean a lot for it. So unless you're earning money from your photos, stick with MFT (good APSC, Fuji, is almost as expensive as FF with its lenses too).
Happy shooting
Thanks for sharing your view.
Legacy 35mm lenses give better results with a FF camera than with a cropped sensor . The argument of the center performance is not real. There are some technical reasons for that but it is better to try and check.
I am a FF and a micro 4/3 user. I recommend using a FF camera ( the first Sony A7 is very good at it for a ridiculous price) with legacy lenses.
Thanks for sharing. I totally forgot to mention the first A7 which dirt cheap today😀
多謝！
Thank you!
Thank you so much for your informative video as usual.
Suppose we set Lumix S1 to a smaller size file to more or less match the file size of Lumix G9. We attach a 50mm lens to S1 and a 25mm lens to G9. If we would pixel peep the two pictures side by side (we do not see the entire photos, but we pixel peep), we can safely assume the picture S1 produces is almost unnoticeably, but slightly better because of the lenses/glasses/optics. Stated differently, we can safely assume that the optics of the 25mm lens cannot be 2x better than that of the 50mm lens.
Thanks for sharing. I assume you wanted to say MFT is smaller...😀
@@mattisulanto Thank you for your response. The resolving power of a lens/glass/optics for a 4x5 film camera is 40 - 60 lines / mm. That of a lens for a 35 mm film camera can be over 100 lines / mm.... since smaller format requires better lens. However practically, in reality, there is a limit. It is practically way too difficult to produce 4x better lens for 35mm film camera. In this case, the resolving power of a lens/glass/optics for a 35 mm camera cannot be 160 - 240 lines / mm.
@@mattisulanto When we look at a catalog, Olympus says that the maximum magnification of M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 30mm F3.5 Macro is 2.5x (35 mm equivalent). That MEANS that the maximum magnification of M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 30mm F3.5 Macro is 1.25x on the sensor.
@@dokugohikken8769 You are really good with numbers😀
@@mattisulanto :D. In order for an MFT lens to deliver the same level of image quality as an FF lens does, theoretically, it has to be 2x better, and that probably is not happening in products sold. Having said that though, if you want to have a DG SUMMILUX 9mm F1.7 equivalent lens for your FF camera, how much does it cost.....
The last generation of apsc beat the crap out of the older FF sensors in iso performance and dynamic range.Medim format form and weight now days is about same as some FF counterparts where FF is not close in IQ to the MF output.First commercial FF digital camera was made by Contax.
Thanks for your opinion.
I think the production of the a7rII has stopped. I always return to my first lens for my a7III, the Tamron 28-75 mm GI. I love the colors and kind of "vintage look" of that lens, compared to the more sterile and neutral Sony lenses I bought when the pandemic hit.
Thanks for sharing. I've been using the G2 version of the Tamron and like it a lot. Many cameras are not in production any more, but you can still buy them second hand as I implied in the video😀
@@mattisulanto Version I is equal as good from f5.6 and upwards. Only below f5.6 GII is better.
After a year of M43 I bought into APS-C. Loved the images until the limited lens selection slowed me down, so I went with Sony Full Frame. Now I have TOO MANY lenses and only one is actually made by Sony (well, 3 by Zeiss). The Alpha series bodies are as small as most Fuji bodies and with FF lens manufacturers making smaller lenses like the i series Sigma, they are portable enough. And then for large prints, FF with 61mp is where I find happiness. I’m not looking back.
Thanks for sharing. Sony lens selection is almost too much, really😀 So many lens brands and types to choose from.
So i should ditch my A6500 and get a A7IV instead?
Ask yourself why and if you can come up with a valid reason, then yes. If you can't find good reasons, then no.
I want the best possible picture quality. 🤷🏼♂️
@@linusevosonic The A7IV has better IQ than the A6500, but the A7RIV has even better.
@@mattisulanto Just in Resolution or even with dynamic range? A6500 at least shots in 14bit Raw and has 85pts in DXO Mark. I think the 33MP from a A7IV would be totally enough for me, so there is no reason for A7RIV. The major downside on fullframe is literally the weight, A6500 with my Tamron 17-70 is endurable to carry around.
@@linusevosonic Well, you have do decide what you need🙂I can't do it for you.
But as for your review, 👌🏾 you put together good videos
Thanks.
The full frame look. Right.
I dont know.. i compared image quality from my gh5 mft csm to sony a73 footage and i really dont see any advantage for the sony. To me full frame does NOT look better . It IS better in low light but i control my lights. To say full frame has better image quality in general is very misleading
Thanks for your opinion. If you don't like FF and if it doesn't look better to you, it doesn't mean it's not better in terms of dynamic range, high ISO and in most cases also resolution.
Hi Matti,
to be bloody honest, the "Fullframe" moniker is the biggest lie & fake from the camera industry, since ever digital. Okay, let me explain that a bit, 36x24mm format, is usually being called "Small Picture Format", because it's the 1:1 translation from german "Kleinbildformat", and it's exactly like that. Why is that? Because into a world, when Large Format and diverse Medium Format (4x5, up to 8x10 large format) the small picture format was considered being inferior, because of the smaller size.
Now, forward to 2000 - the CONTAX N1 digital was the worlds #1 36x24mm Sensor digital DSLR, it was being announced into the year 2000, but delayed serveral times, due to issues with the flawed 6 MP Philips Sensor design into short. Not long after this ultra expensive DSLR was being avialable, Canon entered the market with their so called EOS 1Ds, which featured 11 MP onto the 36x24mm Sensor. Not long after that, gear review sites like DPR called this "Fullframe", to name parity with the analogue Film format.
Since ever then, we do have this silly "Fullframe" moniker, which literally, basically means nothing - except 36x24mm Sensor size, that is. Literally, every Sensor format does serve 1) a purpose and 2) is being "fullframe", as long as the output isn't being cropped, simply hereby. 3) There are nowadays many Pros, which are using Fujifilm gear (APS-C), or even shooting with the smaller MFT or m43, micro four thirds format, especially with Olympus. (*1)
Last, but not least - the industry perfectly managed, to tell the usual, average user, that he always must invest into "Fulframe" gear - because everything else isn't worth it - which is the biggest lie of the photography industry. Yet alone, 36x24mm Sensors do have a 1 to 1 1/3 stop advantage over APS-C/DX in low light, and naturally DoF, but i've seen many excellent pictures from smaller Sensors, in terms of landscape, portrait, etc. Smaller Sensors are totally fine and serving a specific task. (*2)
And again, with "FF", needing telelenses get ridiciously expensive, just think about an 400mm F2.8, or 600mm F4 for instance in L quality....unpayable for an amateur, -enthusiast, or non-pro sports shooter, or -wildlife photographer, and/or -birder. Hereby, APS-C and mFT does have it's size advantage especially for these kind of shutterbugs.
Each Sensor format does serve a purpose. I'd take always a pro or semi-pro APS-C/DX DSLM/DSLR, vs. a entry level FF setup, with reduced features, say missing weathersealing, direct knobs & dials, etc.
kind regards
.
.
.
.
.
.
(*1) ruclips.net/video/uEKlEghwpjY/видео.html 6 Years as a professional landscape photographer
(*2) ruclips.net/video/PHYidejT3KY/видео.html Crop Sensors vs Full Frame :: Crop Or Crap?
I agree that it's kind of fake and I have said that in some of my previous videos. However, I use it because it's universally understood and I don't know how to refer to it in any other simple way.
I also think we should rename the formats today, because so many things have changed since the Kleinbildformat (I can read and understand a bit of German too😀) was invented.
Micro Four Thirds would be the new small format, FF would be the new medium format and the anything bigger than FF would be the new large format. At least in digital that would make sense to me and the logic would be the same as with film cameras.
@@mattisulanto Hi Matti,
thanks for your reply. Well, since the #1 GFX-50s from Fujifilm announced into 2016, ppl have been spotting about the "small Medium Format, because it's being 44x33mm Sensor size - but the bloody truth is, even Hasselblad had serveral "Medium Format" gear with exactly that type of Sensor size, and Pentax also into their famous 645D and afterwards the 645Z.
"FF" gear is nice to have, but like a self build rig, Sensor size doesn't mean anything, same for a PC, when one does look only about the CPU speed, but forget all the rest, hereby quality of the mainboard, slots being avialable for the DIMMs, PCIe cards, quality and options of the Bios, PSU, ATX Case, SSD, etc...the list is long. :) One must look for the whole package, not the Sensor size yet alone is relevant, which counts.
For instance, a typical beginners setup - EOS RP with the 24-105 STM, underdesigned lens, way slow aperture at the teleend, etc. I'd prefer an X-S10, X-H1 with 16-55/2.8 hereby anytime, just for example. It depends one what someone is looking for. Also i must admit, for a very short amount of time (1 week) one could have bought that Canon combo for just 899 EUR, serveral weeks ago here into germany. :-) For the price, okay. But into the end, lots of IQ compromises...anyway, i wish a great sunday.
greetings
All true and I own a Canon 5diii, but it’s big and heavy and is gathering dust. And nobody wants to buy it.
Thanks for sharing.
Waiting for APS-c 😇
The reason why i think all the companies except for Olympus and Fujifilm should just stick with full-frame.
Why? With lesser people buying full fledged cameras it is just shooting one's own foot by splitting the customer base between Full Frame and APS-C and then charging tremendous amount of money for different lenses built for different sensor size.
Sure, APS-C bodies can use full frame lenses but that would only reduce the number of user base to buy the full frame lenses and increase price for the whole market. If the price get higher, lesser people would buy cameras.
It is already so bad as it is. Going forward when smartphones get more sophisticated, the reasons for people to upgrade will be lesser.
Hi! Have you noticed that the sky has disappeared?
One year "43 is better", now "ff is better", next year "mf better ", is about how the wind blowing?
Thanks for sharing your gear philosophy😀
@@mattisulanto sorry, i mean i'm your folower since , ...about few years.
My post was in "retoric" way is not my filosofy, contrary i mean it seems is yours.
@@zenaldiak I only try to come up with interesting and varied topics and titles😀 Not always presenting my personal approach.
😂😂😂
Only 1 reason for me, if ever. Huge prints. Everything else, mft can do perfectly 😊 imagine photo walk with a fullframe and 200-800mm lens 😅 my back made sounds just typing it 😅 I had 5dmk4 and rp though.
Thanks for sharing. Well, that kind of a photo walk is rather imaginary and not likely a real world scenario😀 Of course, if you want the smallest size MFT is it. A phone camera is even smaller😀
@@mattisulanto I use the tg-6 instead of my phone 😁 I'm kind of looking for a good belt bag for my phone, so I don't need to carry it in my chest pocket or pants. Actually kind of thinking about the Samsung galaxy flip 4, because it can be folded small and pocket friendly 😅 or just a smart watch with lte, so I can use that for calls if ever. On photo walks, the phone is actually just deadweight 😬
the only reason they make apsc camera was to sale us lents is not enof you buy the body , you must get also the new wild angle for you camera , than become useless once you get a full frame ,
You forgot the Nikon d810!
I never intended to mention every FF camera in this video. Just some examples😀
Astro choose m43
Went thru the several comments and it seems like the majority of the commenters use both the M43 and FF.
I used APSC (Sony and Canon) for several years and recently bought the Sony A7Riii and I have totally stopped using the APSC cameras. The image quality is that good (for landscape photography). I have never used the Micro Four Third.
The A7RIII is awesome😀
As someone who still shoot with some Nikon film bodies (F2, Nikkormat, F501, etc), full frame is simply logical for me. Why? Not about bokeh, dynamic range, etc, but "no crop". Take example my favourite 50mm lens. On APSC cameras it gives perspective roughly equivalent to 75-80mm and on M43 is... 100-ish (due to smaller image sensor size). Nothing personal against those smaller cameras, in fact I enjoy using them. Just not a fan of using big lenses on smaller bodies. That's how physics works: bigger image sensor means bigger lens
If I want to use APSC or M43 camera, then will stick to their native lenses, not using FF lenses.
And since Fuji makes medium format more affordable, I'm started to question how long I'm gonna stay in FF club? I mean if you want to go big, then skip FF and jump into MF instead. But if you want smaller package, pick APSC or M43 :D
Lol you're insane
Nice video and great reasons to get the FF, but as about the 3-rd party lens makers - you are simply NOT wright !!! I have a Nikon D750 and all of my great lenses, which I got and preserved during the time-test, are made by Tamron !!! Cheaper, better built and with more quality than the more expensive natural lenses.
Sigma does them too - but the operation of controls there is simply made for Canon users, while Tamron keeps the natural operation for Nikon-used guys ...
Thanks for sharing. I don't know exactly which part of the video you are referring to. Of course there are hundreds of third party (D)SLR lenses for every camera, but so far there are not many third party native AF lenses for mirrorless Nikon, or Canon. However, that is probably going to change for Nikon soon.
If you don't print larger than than A4 - there is no reason for FF. For wildelifers who don't shoot to print A4+ - there is no reason for FF. For 99% amateurs FF makes little to no sense.
Thanks for your opinion.
Still don't see the appeal of Full Frame. The market even suggest it's a pretty worthless format unless you're shooting sports, action, photojournalism or specialty work such as a fine art gallery or astrophotography.
Fine art you should buy a Medium Format Film camera (hard to beat the lenses and real +150mp for under $2k).
The top sports camera's are the only FF cameras I see as worth the purchase. Specialty work like astrophotography is fully understandable.
Even these hybrid full frame video camera's with a bagillion megapixels still can't beat an old camera with under 7mp and shoots 2.6k video upscaled to 3.6k not 4k 🤣 🤷🏾♂️ (Arri Alexa)
The GH series cameras are awesome for video in most cases better than larger sensors and way cheaper.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Full frame is a worthless format??? Are we counting the thousands, dare I say millions of dollars of income made by photographers shooting full frame??
@@Dustyphoto915 Each format has made billions in terms of professionally produced photographic work.
What's your point?
Full Frame digital has made the least money of any digital format sensor size. Film was replaced by APS-C and smaller digital sensors not Full Frame.
What predated APS-C vs Full Frame today was 35mm vs Medium Format film.
The only reason professional photographers today settled on Full Frame is due to cost and due to manufacturers up selling to enthusiast. Give it a thought, smaller shutter's can move faster than larger shutters, smaller sensors can read faster than larger sensors yet APS-C camera's when Full Frame digital was introduced were downgraded (Loss Leader). The obvious it's depth of field, no. I mentioned the professions it's for. For everyone else it's pointless when the difference is taking a few steps back. It's not like 110 (MFT) vs 35mm.
Professionals shot medium format or large format mostly which you're making a similar argument for Full Frame.
If Medium Format digital cost the same as Full Frame which do you think would sell more? Right now it's getting worse for Full Frame b/c the pixel pitch is nearly the same size of Smartphone photosites and medium format prices are coming down.
Hasselblad just announced today or yesterday the X2D. Go take a look. Fast AF, built-in SSD, 15stops of DNR, real 16bit color, 100mp, for $8k.
Thanks, but I must respectfully disagree, especially with regard to "IQ." I challenge you to shoot the same scenes with multiple different cameras, process them to optimize the images, and print them any size. Without knowing which prints came from which camera, I doubt many people would be able to tell any difference, and certainly wouldn't automatically gravitate toward the larger-format images (especially at an appropriate viewing distance). Also, as you point out, newer lenses are generally optically superior to "legacy" lenses and you can get great approximations of "vintage looks" (as well as background blur, which is easy to get in the field) in post. The main problem is when you get to longer/faster lenses, where portability/discretion can be an issue.
There's certainly nothing "wrong" with any particular format, but the only reason "FF" or APS-C exists is precisely for marketing purposes--CaNikon knew they'd have trouble selling bodies to all of us 35mm SLR users if it meant buying a whole new set of lenses. I'm glad I waited to go from film to digital and only bought into a digital system when the G9 became available. I was all set to get a Sony a7iii (with the 24-105 and 100-400 plus a 2x TC), but the bulk of the big lens raised questions about portability and I like to limit tripod use. My G9 system covers 16-800 efl (plus macro--the Oly 60mm is awesome) and is much smaller and lighter (not the body, but I find the a7 body too small anyway, plus Lumix has superior ergo).
There are good reasons MFT is the most popular format in gear-conscious Japan. Do you still use your G9 (or the FZ1000 I saw in your video about how changing systems makes no sense)?
That blind print test is a bit besides the point. I think the viewer should not need to think about the gear the photographer used. The photographer should choose the camera-lens combo that delivers the results the photographer wants. Then the viewer either likes the final photo or doesn't like. If the viewer starts to wonder about the photographer's camera there is something wrong with the photo.
I have another video about why MFT is great.
I still have Panasonic, both FF and MFT.
@@mattisulanto That's what I was trying to say--few people know or care what gear was used to make the image and ink droplets can only get so small and paper texture can only show a certain level of detail, so it doesn't matter much what camera you use most of the time. I agree with your statement--whatever works for the photographer...
I think and I’m sure,that only Canon has stopped third party companies producing lenses for their cameras .