We want full frame versions of these Micro Four Thirds lenses!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 авг 2024
- Professional full frame lenses are usually large and fast, but there's a need for slow professional lenses. We tell you which Micro Four Thirds lenses we want for full frame.
Music provided by BeatSuite.com
www.beatsuite.com
Equipment rentals provided by The Camera Store
www.thecamerastore.com
-----------------------
DPReview.com is the world's largest digital camera review website. Welcome to our RUclips channel! Subscribe for new feature videos, reviews, interviews and more.
Discover the world's most in-depth digital camera reviews at www.dpreview.com 
Наука
Never understood the hate for MFT. It’s been one of the best things to come out of the digital switch.
@Paul Jones It's been around since 2008, it's the de facto go to for video camera bodies now, and this guys is saying "It never sold!" 😂
@@VictorVonVulfgang they are insecure for other sizes...
I never understood that neither, if someone wan full frame just go out and buy what you want stop complaining there are different options for people with different needs. An let me tell you that need for less bulk and weigh gear is a real thing and mFT is the best in that.
It was MFT that introduced mirrorless as a market segment. But even back in 2008 when I bought a GH-1 the mob was claiming that MFT was going to die. They are the same sort of people who mock anyone who buys Leica. Some people are so insecure they need to feel superior to other people and they need scapegoats. MFT is the current scapegoat.
i never own a digital full frame. my first digitial interchangeable lens was the olympus e300. actually i did buy apsc but i still uses my mft more, so i reckon i might not be ready for a full frame yet.
Compact, great weather sealing and brilliant stabilization are the 3 most important traits I want. Nothing else comes close to M43 for my needs no matter how much money I spend
If full frame systems started making compact pro grade lenses I might have somewhere to go assuming M43 is actually dying. Til then I'm sticking with my current setup until I'm not able to take photos anymore
Is that true m43 lenses are generally cheaper than apsc counterpart? Their size seems similar & because I'm not professional, I think it's not very wise to investing in the latest & greatest gear..
Durio sp Olympus PRO lenses ain’t cheap. Neither I would call super lightweight. At the same time we have too look in prospective, for example one of best portrait lens in m43 is Olympus 45/1.2 which cost in B&H $1150 and weight 410g, in FF one of the best would be Sony 85/1.4 GM which cost $1800 and weight 820g. They both are top of the line lenses, best of the best, very robust and capable to produce incredible portraits. At the same time you can see difference in price and weight. If we take a small step down from pro lines, we will find Sony 85/1.8 $600 - 370g and Olympus 45/1.8 $300 - 120gramm. APS-C is kind of strange world, because most of manufacturers treating they line of APS-C as “a step” to they FF system, this is why it is hard to find top of the line APS-C lenses from camera manufacturers, as continuation of my example we can take Sony E 50/1.8 OSS, which is $350 and weight 200 grams. Still bigger (it is plain physics) and more expensive (again - physics, need bigger glass, cost more) compare to Olympus 45/1.8. M43 has no “upscaled” format (like FF for APS-C) , so instead Panasonic and Olympus can simply differentiate line of they optics , like Olympus has 3 lines - Zuiko, Zuiko Premium and Zuiko PRO, giving exceptional choice to clients, depending on needs and budget.
PS Fuji is exception, they APS-C cameras doesn’t have FF upscale, this is why they also produce one line of optics without “pushing” (motivating) clients to higher price point. Kudos to them.
@@Durio_zibethinus MFT is the most overpriced system on the market in terms of value for money.
@@mfreider You're comparing apples to oranges. That f/1.4 MFT prime is an f/2.8 full frame equivalent. It's nowhere near the optical performance of a Sony f/1.4 prime. A single 24-70mm f/2.8 in full frame replaces a whole bag of f/1.4 MFT primes.
Once you do crop factor conversion correctly instead of the way Olympus's marketing wrongly tells you to it quickly becomes apparent that MFT is the most expensive system on the market in terms of value for money.
Landscope 360 Apple and oranges? Not really :) I am looking on both systems and in this particular example, just pick portrait lenses. Regardless of f-stop and other “equivalencies”. From prospective - if I need to take portrait, what is may choices. Personally, using both Sony 85/1.4 GM in past and 45/1.2 From Olympus, I can not say what 85 is far superior actually I prefer Olympus, much easier and nice to use. Same about pro grade zooms in FF like 24-70/2.8 , actually I would say most of what I used is not that great but it is my personal opinion. Because I am not a professional just a spoiled hobbist - value for money has a different meaning for me. I had few FF system in past and after switching to m43 found out a best balance of values (important for me, other person may have different set of values) vs prices.
Back in the days before photography was taken over by IT twits, “The new 80mm Planar on the Rolleiflex 2.8F sounds great, but in terms of total light capture equivalency vs. the Linhof Super-Technika...” was said by nobody, ever. Likewise, back then we realized that less depth of field wasn't always better (in which case presumably the ideal would be a lens with no depth of field at all.) Now, people cherry-pick totally bogus “equivalency” theories to justify whichever camera brand they want to prefer. By this dubious standard, it's technically accurate to say that Micro Four Thirds quadruples the power of all your flash units compared to cameras using the Grandpa's-Exakta format, but you never hear people touting “flash energy equivalency” because that doesn't reinforce their preconceived preference. Photography, like everything else, is being ruined by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
This is - by far - the most intelligent comment about photography I read in a long, long time.
Bruh, there is an insane difference between ff and micro43. Ff all the way, for professional nature and wildlife photography
M43 still is the perfect system for anyone who loves to travel and hike a lot. Weather sealing is sooo important when I'm on a 2/3 day hiking tour in the mountains. What use is a camera system that I'm too afraid to shoot on when it starts to rain? Currently no other system gives me the freedom and flexibility that M43 does in terms of size, weight and quality of the results.
On my trips (pre Corona :D) I carry the PanaLeica 8-18mm f2.8-4, Olympus 25mm f1.2 and Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 (all weather sealed), and am still able to pack clothes for 2/3 day hikes into a single backpack. Name any other system that gives me the same range, the same weight and the same quality of results.
I will continue to use my M43 gear for the next 5 to 6 years, at which point I might want to upgrade to a new system due to advancement in technology (assuming that M43 will eventually die). Who knows whats going to happen until then? More camera companies will go broke because of smartphones. Olympus was the first big name to fall, but it definately won't be the last.
Exactly !!! Those reasons are exactly why I picked up the Olympus EM5 Mii for travel (weather sealing, weight, build quality, fantastic stabilization - plus ergonomics and style). My Sony APS-C cameras just didn't have those features and Sony seemed uninterested in developing those features. For travel. I haven't found any drawbacks to the M43 sensor apart from performance inside dimly lit areas where flash was not allowed/practical.
Good points I owe ff and m4/3 and both are great and high quality, different uses as you mentionned.
You can do the exact same thing with full frame gear and get significantly higher quality results - for less money.
@@youknowwho9247 Can you state the combo? for FF-equivalent of 18-36, 50mm, 80-300 mm weather-sealed?
Landscope 360 was macht der Blutdruck?
In the mean time of wishing these lenses were full frame, I’ll be trying to grab as many Olympus lenses as I can. And cameras for that matter.
Me too
And me. BTW I'm also invested in Sony FF, recognise it can produce better quality images when really necessary, but most of the time my Olympus EM1MK2 does an excellent job.
Bargaaaain time lol
Interesting that Robin Wong has posted an announcement from Olympus that states some new lenses are coming such as a 100mm F2.8 pro macro!
I do not see why anyone would want one of these small aperture full frame lenses where you would have to crank up the iso to get a decent shutter speed and have slow focus especially in less than ideal light. I think photographers that wanted to carry smaller size and weight would be better served by improved sensor tech for micro 4/3rds. If it was not for the relentless propaganda against micro 4/3rds by the RUclips photography channels perhaps we would not have Olympus selling out and may already have had improved sensor tech in micro 4/3rds.
yeah, I'd say buy a Olympus or Panasonic (which is still in the system), and get all the benefits. On top off reduced price, beacause of Oly situation. Some day, some monopoly-seeking company called Sony might even release a new sensor in 43.... :/
@@thedavidbrother2 They already did in September 2019. It's an 8K30fps capable mft sensor and will give you about 42MP stills resolution.
If it's acceptable on MFT why wouldn't it be acceptable on FF? I don't know what you consider high ISO, but let's say your limit on MFT is ISO 1600. The equivalent (i.e., with the same amount of image noise) on FF is ISO 6400. Your MFT F4 at ISO 1600 will produce similar result as a FF F8 at ISO 6400. If they can make the size equivalent too then sign me up!!
@@thedavidbrother2 It's not necessarily cheaper though. M43 lenses are generally more cost ineffective and more expensive compared to full frame versions if you account for equivalency of DoF. Throwing bokeh out of the equation, yeah M43 will be way cheaper.
I love the advantages of MFT system over FF but I don't mind owning both MFT and FF system for different purposes. I will probably still pick my Gh5 kit over FF most of the time because it is so much lighter.
There are no advantages of MFT over full frame...
Landscope 360 there are plenty. Even the guys that made this video, that literally test hundreds of cameras, still personally own and shoot MFT. That says a lot. Good cameras come in all shapes and sizes
@@jsleeve1 Right. Name one such advantage. Just one.
@@youknowwho9247 smaller and lighter lens and takes less space in your bag. I carry x3 primes , 12-35mm and top handle all the small Peak Design sling. I pretty much carry this everyday... I can't see myself doing that with FF.
"Gigantic, glass, light-gathering phallus"
"I have a surprise for you.... Its big but its not too big.." 😂😂
If it was really big he would have brought out the jar of Vaseline lol.
6:58 LOOL someone's been drinking before filming.. love it
Finally someone gets it - from your mouths to Japan's ear. I shoot a 2.8 40mm pancake on a 5D, and a 12-32 zoom a few millimetres long on a GX80 among other lenses, and never feel inadequately equipped. In fact I spent years shooting 35mm lenses at f5.6 and f8, with rare excursions below 2.8. Even on full frame portraits I've never felt the need to go below f2, because some part of the face will be out of focus.
Throwing parts of a face out of focus is not a problem but the goal of long portrait primes with fast apertures. Sounds to me like you have no idea how to utilise fast glass properly.
@@youknowwho9247 I was shooting fast lenses professionally in the 1970s - why wouldn't I understand their advantages? Portrait lenses were generally shot stopped down because the optics of the period didn't lend themselves to wide open use. Typically an f1.4 lens was shot at f2, which was sharper than an f2 lens at the same aperture, though there were exceptions. It also allowed all the features of the face to be rendered sharply, no one was going to pay for a photograph with an out of focus nose. The longer a focal length, the shallower the depth of field, all other things being equal. Modern lenses are sold exclusively on sharpness and maximum aperture, qualities which require compromises elsewhere.
@@borderlands6606 That's utter rubbish. Clearly you've not kept up with the time. People want ultra shallow portraits. If you're getting the ears in focus you're doing it wrong.
@@youknowwho9247 (face plant) Stick to dew on spider's webs my friend.
@@borderlands6606 It's called "face palm". Everything about you screams "I failed to keep up with the times".
Saving size in lenses is where it's at. Camera bodies can really only be so small. I'm all for this concept
I'm confused, I thought the only difference between an f4.0 micro 4/3 lens and a f4.0 FF lens was the depth field. I thought the amount of light entering the lens was equivalent on both lenses. So a f4.0 micro 4/3 lens give you less separation but it used the same speed that the FF equivalent.
They made a clear mistake many times, a micro 4/3 lens let's say f2:8 will gather sale amount of light as a ff 2:8. Same for an aps c 2:8 etc etc. They mixed crop factor VS f. So disappointing fron well known youtubbers.
Yes, you are correct, in that an f4.0 MFT lens gathers the same amount of light as an f4.0 FF lens per unit area of sensor. So, shutter speeds will be similar at the same ISO number. The equivalence only applies to depth of field. Unwittingly, these reviewers mentioned another advantage of MFT: a FF lens with the same depth of field equivalence (i.e., twice the f number) will have worse autofocus performance.
No , light gathering depends on physical aperture (= focal length/f-stop). I have a PhD and understanding in optics to confirm that . 300mm f4 mft is 600mm f8 on ff for all optical purposes. The video is exactly correct.
BTW, why can't we have sharp photos from Full frame system as we have from Micro four thirds system?
Toneh N. and FroknowsAperture disapprove of this video :-P
They really wouldn't. They've been the ones spearheading correct crop factor conversion and debunking MFT marketing. That's all.
@@youknowwho9247 If you say so... what I meant is that for instance Fro does not want to qualify a lens as pro if it is not 2.8, regardless of build quality or other image quality aspects. Tony would rather use a lens with lower F number even if it has terrible focus breathing, for video, giving us headaches, or a camera that makes line skipping so badly that has lower video DR than a M43, just for the bokeh. I think we all understand equivalency, it is just not very important for many of us since IQ has become so good regardless.
@@chcomes I totally agree with you. Tony thinks and says that a super shallow depth of field always produces cinematic images which is nonsense. He always uses the fastest lenses possible regardless the environment he is and sometimes the image is so bright that you can see just his face. Composition is a key element in photography and filmmaking and it's important to see some of the background to properly understand the scene. To have a super thin depth of field is important in portrait photography but he uses this technique every time. I realy don't understand why people think that one aspect of photography is the only one that matters.
@@renanmlopes and even in portraiture, too much broken is a thing. At least to me, contextualizing the subject is also important in portraiture and as such 2.8 is often more than enough.
@@chcomes "Pro" means "for professional use". A zoom slower than f/2.8 isn't worth it for a working pro who shoots people, which is the vast majority of pros. The build quality of fast aperture glass is also generally much higher than that of slower options. As a rule of thumb, distinguishing lenses as pro by their fast aperture makes perfect sense.
As far as video goes, everything you said is a matter of taste. I don't care about focus breathing or like skipping, but I hate distracting backgrounds and noise. Let's also not forget that the single best pro video body in this market right now is indeed a full frame: The S1H.
The problem with the "pro" tag on MFT glass is that the only thing "pro" about them is the price tag. Their low effective apertures make them useless for most professional work, not to mention the fact that outdated 20 mpix sensors don't cut it in today's environment.
I think of this quite often. I have an old manual S-M-C Takumar 35mm F3.5 that is compact and a nice general lens. For Micro 4/3 I have the Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm F1.8 that is very similar in size, weight, eq. aperture. Very happy with both!
I would love to see this happen. I upgraded and have been thinking of going back to mft. Shallow depth of field is very overrated. Small lens I carry with me aren’t.
Fast apertures aren't just about shallow depth of field, they're also about shooting in low light. If you don't need either, just get a full frame kit zoom. It replaces a whole bag of MFT primes in terms of optical performance.
FF kit zooms don't measure up in optical quality to M43 primes
@@Simoneister A 45 mpix full frame camera with a kit zoom produces much better images than a 20 mix MFT camera with an expensive prime.
@@youknowwho9247 Nah
@@youknowwho9247 Aha, sure bro
Canon seems to move that way with f7.1 zooms and f11 supertele primes. I am sure they will perform great, not too sure about size and price. We'll have to wait for that.
Interesting topic. Thanks
Precisely. People don't realize Canon is making a big play with the RF mount. They are going to make all things to everyone. The real issue is they don't have a prosumer travel body to go with those lenses.
@Luke Caldwell this video cover exactly that question in a very convincing way: ruclips.net/video/m_Yvi2PeFOs/видео.html
@@preiaen Are there any leaked photos of that f11 lens? I'm pretty interested in that in telescope world, f11 is very common for Schmidt-Cassegrain design. I wonder if that lens is actually catadioptric?
@Luke Caldwell and that too a wildlife telephoto which will a lot of times be used in darker situations.
Why not get nikon 200-500? Lower iso would mean better iq most likely than a prime.
@@ryankwan1934 The EOS R squarely falls into the prosumer market. What they don't have yet is a professional body.
Happy Canada Day! Thanks for the fun discussion!
That's the most hilarious video I've watched for a long, long time! More laughs than a Kaiman Wong or a Conspiracies episode. I gotta hand it to you two, you're veterans in the RUclips business and you've got a knack of getting to the point. Started talking with the idea of an f/8 type lens, hopefully sharp as MFT, cheaper than the current f/4 or f/2.8 and then....... you remind us that this f/8 is not an equivalent aperture (as in depth of field) but is really dark (as in not much light hitting the autofocus elements). Hahahahaha....
Thanks for this great video! Im a m4/3 user, worried about the future of the system. Would love to hear your thoughts about that....Also what is the website you use to show / compare the lenses in this video? Thanks!
Seems like canon are bringing 600F11 & 800F11 soon.
It will be interesting to see how they perform.
Anyone remember the Canon FD 35-105mm f3.5 macro? And it was full frame.
It also didnt have IS and AF, both of which takes space...
I own that very lens. Very nice (for film era extremely nice lens) 3.5 is easier to work with now with my EOS M /FD mount converter on my M50 and it's auto ISO it is almost practical to use. But don't get too far ahead with this. It still has to get past the crop factor. In the 90's I still used the 35-105 for everything that my 24mm prime or 75-200 f4.5 didn't get used for. It was my favorite
We’re acting like sharp glass was just invented but that’s not true. There’re lenses that are almost a hundred years old and still take amazing looking pictures. We’ve just gotten better at getting rid of the kinks. But modern lenses still exhibit these aberrations and often lack character and intent in their visual look. I’m not talking about soft vintage lenses but compare a Zeiss Distagon from the 80s with a Sigma Art lens.
Feels like a pre-plug for some lenses you (and most people) already know about but have probably already played with. Looking forward to the announcements. :)
Canon is about to launch a whole bunch of f8 or f11 ish lenses ... probably on 9th jul
@@adityasingh6478 Somehow I got the feeling that @k Kensuke already knew about this...
@@JokiW yeah most probably , but i still wanted to vent out ...
specifically dont like the fact when Jordan stressed that even a couple of thousand price tag for such lenses would be reasonable ...
@@JokiW Certainly did. ^_^
@@adityasingh6478 Yes, that's true... Already knew as I imagined most people probably do. :)
Everyone says that mirrorless can focus at -8ev i don't know what system did you try it on but a7r4 can barley focus at -3ev.
I'm glad that someone is finally talking about this.
I rarely do video, shoot mostly at f11, travel a lot, and want the highest image quality I can get but in a light weight package (and APS-C isn't doing it for me compared to my A7R2). For some reason, when companies make a lightweight lens they assume that those are for beginners and don't make them as good optically as they could be. And they also assume that if you want a high quality lens you must also want a giant aperture and don't mind carrying around a beast of a lens. IRIX was on the right path with releasing a light version of a lens along with the regular version. More manufacturers should do the same, but also shrink the aperture along with using the lighter materials.
The GH5 is back!!!! Did it whisper into your ear Jordan..."Once you go the five, you always come back"?
Oh and did one of you get a new slider? and pull the Dad maneuver of wanting to use it for EVERYTHING?
How does the Nikon Z 24-200 f4-6.3 compare with an equivalent Micro 4/3 lense for size and weight?
I shoot both M43 and Nikon Z and am very fond of both systems. If I where to use an adapter to attach my Oly 75 1.8 or my Oly 12-100 F4, to my Z6, I know I would loose auto focus but what would the equivalent be in terms of focal length and aperture? Sorry if this has been asked and answered but there are a lot of comments below. Thanks DP Preview
Sharpness is more important than narrow deep of field. We can blur sharp images but not the other ways. The 12-100 is so sharp. With some compression you can narrow depth of field too. Combined with the old em5 ii, it has 6.5 stops IS for low light landscape. I bought a bigger flash for low light portrait cause the lens is long so It partially blocks the small flash come with the body.
What combination is better, high end M43 lenses on a high end M43 camera, or a good full frame body with a kit FF lens? As far as i can see on Dxomark, a kit lens on (for example) the a7rii still has pretty good sharpness (>20 perceptual megapixels), and is quite comparably light to M43 lenses.
Panasonic has exactly one opportunity to save m43: bring out a zero-concession powerhouse of a GH6. With some form of PDAF. And soon.
Manual focus is fun. Not fussed with AF but I can see why people like vloggers need AF for what they do.
Not if the price is greater than $2000. I still like m43 but lately, the cameras are out of my reach due to their high prices.
@@tylou4479 Manual focus is fun ... when you're in a studio or on a specific shoot. It's not fun when you're on a gimbal, runnin' and gunnin', or shooting sports/wildlife where you only get one shot to get it right.
@@peace4myheart G9 is the bargain of the century right now..
@@GordLamb The G9 is still overpriced for a 20 mpix camera without PDAF and a tiny MFT sensor that limits shooting to below ISO 1600.
The Canon 400mm 5.6 is my favorite lens for how small it is. I would love to see f8 primes in the wildlife range
Thank you for this video. I have the 12-100 f4 pro which is spectacular for lightweight single-lens travel landscape use (large DOF is a good thing there!). The 300mm f4 pro is SPECTACULAR for handheld close-up flowers/insects since it has a 0.48x FF equivalent max magnification with 600mm FF EQ background compression! That's my MAIN use for it (much more than for far off birding, which it does well if they're not flying) and you guys didn't mention that at all! DOH!
I’m somehow not surprised that at 3:50 Chris has random telephoto lenses just hidden in his seat cushions haha
What's the 50mm f1.8, 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 equivalent to micro four thirds lens?
Cool ideas! How much smaller would the be when factoring in the larger image sensor? Would the the bigger diameter rear element still increase size? Would full frame likely be able to have stabilisation that keeps up with micro four thirds? Would the the only benefit be noise performance?
Any of the Pentax Limited lenses like the FA 77mm f/1.8 are amazing!
Or the 15mm f/4. APS-C, but still. There’s no shallow depth of field on a lens that wide anyhow, so just make it light and tiny and beautiful.
@@thebitterfig9903 Exactly. I never understood this pursuit of wide apertures over their size in wide lenses.
I don’t know if you all are discussing small aperture. For the light exposure amount F4 is enough for MFT size as same as F4 in Full Frame. The difference is the depth of field only, it’s F8 DoF in Full Frame.
Is Jordan wearing Criterion shirt?
Indeed!
Jordan Drake cool!
Would be thrilled by this. I like the resolution and quality of FF, but light FF lenses tend to be prosumer with bad glass. I'd pay more for light, slow zooms with very good image quality.
Hi Chris, i might be asking you to suggest a dream camera but would like to know your perspective on this, I'm looking for a pocketable, stealthy camera having an all purpose lens on it, i find G5X mark 2 to tick all the boxes but I'd like more depth separation like an APS-C, if you could elaborate in a video about all the best options for a whole package in compact size, I'm sure it'll be helpful to many people, big fan of your sense of humor :)
Based on some of the comments below, there appears to be a basic misunderstanding regarding "equivalent f-stop". Why the misunderstanding? Answer: Because light-gathering and depth of field (DOF) are being conflated. Here is the truth:
(1) - In terms of light-gathering, an f4.0 aperture is identical on micro four thirds (m4/3) and full-frame (FF) systems. In fact, it is true for all camera systems (large-format, medium format, etc). As far as their lenses are concerned, all conventional cameras have the same light-gathering ability at the same f-stop. (For confirmation, learn how f-stop values are calculated.) Therefore, a FF f8.0 lens will gather less light per area than an m4/3 f4.0 lens. This will force the FF camera to make much longer exposures with an f8.0 lens unless you push the ISO of the FF camera way up. But the higher ISO does not help autofocus (AF), which still needs actual photons of light and, as explained in the above video, some (perhaps most) FF systems today will have serious AF problems at such small apertures. In this respect, there is no equivalence between FF f8.0 and m4/3 f4.0. If you truly want the same light-gathering ability in FF, you'll need an f4.0 lens also and that will mean a way bigger lens and a way bigger cost because of the 2x larger image size (for equivalent quality).
(2) - When the image size of the camera changes, the DOF changes for a given f-stop. The larger the image size in the camera, the shallower the DOF. This is true for both film and digital sensors. It's why a large-format camera has shallower DOF than a full-frame at the same f-stop. And a full-frame camera has shallower DOF than m4/3 at the same f-stop. Because of the 2:1 ratio between FF and m4/3 image sizes, an m4/3 f4.0 lens will have twice the DOF as a FF f4.0 lens. So you can say that an m4/3 f4.0 lens has the equivalent DOF as an FF f8.0 lens. But we're ONLY talking about DOF and that's where the equivalence begins and ends. As explained in (1) above, there is a big difference between light-gathering of an f4.0 and an f8.0 lens and this does not change with camera image size.
(3) - There is one more difference that is sometimes overlooked: optical resolution. The resolving power of the lens must match the pixel size of the image sensor (actually, photo receptors). Since we are talking about area, the difference between FF and m4/3 is squared. This means a 20 mp m4/3 image sensor will require the lens to have 4x the resolving power of an equivalent lens with a 20 mp FF image sensor. Here's another way to think about it: If the physical size of an M.Zuiko m4/3 lens were scaled up to fit the 2x larger size of the image sensor in a FF camera, and the same super-high resolution M.Zuiko glass were used, the 2x larger lens would resolve an image with 4x the resolution and handle an 80 mp FF image sensor!!! This means: Any FF image sensor with less than 80 mp will need less optical resolution from its lenses than the m4/3 system does. This works against the cost savings of a m4/3 lens. In terms of cost, the following summary should help: For a given f-stop m4/3 cameras require lenses with half the size and weight of an FF system to produce their smaller m4/3 image size. This is a big plus for m4/3. However, those smaller m4/3 lenses must use glass elements with a higher resolving power to match their image sensor's smaller pixel size. That's a negative for m4/3. And this is why price comparisons are not as easy as you might think since the smaller physical size of the m4/3 lenses is offset somewhat by the need for lenses with higher optical resolution.
Note: The high-resolution mode of some m4/3 cameras is achieved by stacking multiple 20 mp images. Each image is a separate exposure with the image sensor offset by half the size of a photo receptor group (basically, half a pixel). Because each of the individual images is only at 20 mp, the final 40, 50 or 80 mp composite high-rez image is legitimate and does not require a higher optical resolution from the lens. Sadly, the major drawback of this technique is that it only works for stationary subjects.
Well written. I had a firm understanding of your points 1 & 2 about F-stop and DOF. But I hadn't heard about the optical resolution, mostly because all this modern glass seems to be so sharp anyway, even at the cheap end (for my non-pro purposes, at least). Still, incredibly interesting to consider.
This time I think you are totally wrong. It would be much better to improve the mft sensors to make them compete with FF sensors in pixel count and performance at ISO above 3200.
I think we will see this. The GH5S sensor competes with A7SII with lowlight ability (No one complained about its performance). I think we will see ~20MP MFT sensor with dual gain performance like GH5S has.
The art of looking into the wrong camera is here perfected.
A f4.0 Lens is a f4.0 Lens, no matter what format you use, when it comes to GATHER LIGHT. You get the same shutter speed in Aperture Prio when aperture + ISO + light conditions are the same on FF or MFT.
However, where FF and MFT differs the depth of field. A f4.0 MFT lens has a DOF of 8.0 in FF.
The advantage of MFT is, that you can shoot at f1.2, where you can get a lot of light and keep the ISO low, while still have a DOF of f2.4 eq to FF.
The advantage of FF is, that you can raise you ISO, to compensate the f2.8 vs f1.2.
MFT 300mm f4.0 = FF 600mm f4.0 in shutter speed
MFT 300mm f4.0 = FF 600mm f8.0 in DOF. Raise your ISO by 2 stops and you get the same SS like a 600m f4.0 FF or 300mm f4.0 MFT.
At the end, its all the same s**t :D.
The question ist, do you wanna carry 1Kilo of s**t or 2 Kilo of s**t :D
Well, you're right and wrong. The light intensity from e.g. F4 on any is the same on any system, that's why you use same settings otherwise. But the light intensity is measured by area and a FF sensor has four times the area of an MFT sensor, so the whole FF sensor actually gathers four times the light of the whole MFT sensor at the same aperture. Or put in another way: One pixel in e.g. a 24MP FF sensor receives four times as many photons in the same time frame as one pixel on a 24MP MFT sensor at the same aperture. That's why FF has a typical 2-stop noise advantage over MFT. And that's why it all theoretically cancels itself out with exactly the same image properties.
As long, as price tag stay on the reasonable level, nothing wrong with Canon RF 800/11 really.
Agreed! But what is the max magnification? I hope it's high for close up work (yes, close up!) The Oly 300mm f4 has 0.48X FF EQ max magnification and 600mm EQ compression of background - WOW!
@@JM-vw1dk it's also an effective f/8 and goes on a 20 mpix body. A high res full frame cropped to 20 mpix will magnify larger and compress better with nearly any telephoto lens.
F11 as the largest (Iris size) Aperture is a sick joke. Especially from canon, who in the first place have awful dynamic range coverage, now it’ll be even worse with high iso... canon, canon, canon... what have you been smoking?
@@mortenthorpe exactly, most Canon FF cameras have the dynamic range of a m43 camera already. Some even a little worse.
Jan Garcia yes... and most people apparently think that high iso is only about introducing noise - it’s not really... the major side effects of higher iso, are that the dynamic range goes down, as the iso goes up... its easy to prove - take the same image at two different iso’s, necessarily adjusting shutter speed - and see how you can post process both to same exposure end results - notice the noise and lacking colors in the high iso shot... ahhh :)
This is exactly why I am super interested in Nikon Z-mount compact primes that appear on their lens roadmap! If they come up with a small 28mm f2.8, it is an immediate purchase for me
I'm looking forward to their video-centric lenses.
Loved that Criterion tee ❤️
Well the Samyang and Tamron lenses seem to fit the bill? Samyang 18/2.8, 35/2.8, 45/1.8, 75/1.8, Tamron 24/2.8, 35/2.8 and of course the f/2.8 zoom trio.......
I was just about to type this... but wanted to check in the comment section to make sure nobody said it already. You did! LOL
I personally use the 35mm f2.8 on my a7s.
One of the things I appreciate about Fuji is that they have fairly slow (and small) yet high quality primes like ”fujicrons“ (incl. the 16 f2.8). I wish more camera/lens brands did this: small, and ”slow”, yet high build quality and image quality (whether it’s crop og FF).
The only one I know that really consistently does this is Leica with their M lenses but they don’t exactly get the potential affordability advantages of ”slower” lenses.
Like they demonstrate in the video, as far as zooms go, m43 is even better in this regard, and I’d love to have something like the current XF16-80mm f4, but like f6 or something and have it be smaller than the current XF16-80.
I'd love if the 16-80 would be close to the 12-100 in quality, sadly it is far from it.
Surely as the image circle gets larger the more you have to correct for CA, distortion, vignetting etc., thus making FF equivalents of MFT is not as easy as it looks on paper.
This. I was just thinking the same thing about the imaging circle.
That's a non issue at small apertures.
@@youknowwho9247 Depending on how tight to the image sensor you make the image circle. But yes, the smaller the apature the less of an issue CA etc. becomes. Transmission becomes a bigger issue for a FF equivalent, if you are looking at f11 etc.
Interesting concept but there are a few problems. MFT lenses project a smaller image circle and require smaller optics. The crop factor means an MFT lens can be 100 mm when a FF must be 200 mm to achieve the same field of view. Aperture in terms of light density means an F4 MFT captures as much light by area as a Full Frame F4 lens. An FF F8 lens would capture about 8 times less light by area and would be hugely difficult to auto focus regardless of tech since the same tech will always work better with more light
I don't really understand why the aperture of 4/3 lenses needs to be doubled to compare with Full Frame. The lens is smaller, so will let in less light, but it is focusing the light it does get on a sensor that has an area 1/4th the size of a full frame. My thinking is there should be 4 times the light per pixel on the 4/3, (both cameras having the same MP). Sensor area 225mm squared for MFT vs 864mm squared for full frame. As lens diameter goes up, area greatly increases, but the full frame lens isn't that much larger, and it has to distribute the light on an area 4 times larger. I would think it is at least a draw, so 1.8 FF is 1.8MFT.
Take a 25mm picture with 4/3 and a 50mm pic with Full frame using the same F stop and speed. Is the full frame twice as bright?
Hey Chris love your videos man. You are the best presenter in the world..😍😍
So do the "new" Sony 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, and 50mm f/2.5 check those boxes? They are slower, light and compact...
What about the new Tamron for Sony e mount. Send like a good option for photography not really for video because of the variable aperture
I love you guys so much.
I'm having trouble understanding this equivalency thing. If I am taking a landscape photo with my Olympus do I still need two stops more light to get the same exposure as full frame?
The equivalency aspect only really applies to field of view and depth of field. For example, a 2.8 aperture is a 2.8 aperture no matter the sensor size. It doesnt matter if its a cell phone camera or medium format. The light transmitted is the same. When they say there's a 2 stop difference between m43 and full frame, they're talking about the depth of field. A 2.8 lens on m43 will give the equivalent dof of f5.6 on full frame. The way every RUclips channel tries to explain equivalency is very misleading.
To put it in another perspective. If you print an 8x10 picture and use scissors to cut down to fit in a 5x7 frame. Would the exposure change? Of course not.
crop cameras work the same way. Your exposure will be the same no matter your sensor size.
@@justinstein2032
I have both Sony FF and m43 and I find this comment of aperture and light transmission to be accurate, with the caveat of smaller sensor ISO performance partially due to pixel density (eg m43 20mp is roughly equivalent to FF 80mp, in terms of pixel density).
Stuff like this tends to get complicated, and sometimes hypothetical in terms of calculation, just shoot at the lowest iso you can while using the accurate exposure preview from the evf/screen and be happy! :)
@@justinstein2032 So if I want more in focus I would be at a two stop disadvantage with a full frame camera?
Justin Stein Doesn’t it apply to image quality as well? So a f/2 image from M43 will have the same quality as an f/5.6 image on FF if the shutter speeds are the same. This assumes glass is of equal quality, which is rarely the case. f/5.6 FF glass is usually low quality, which is what the video is about. Performance should equal M43 f/2 if someone actually makes a high quality f/5.6 FF lens.
Look at the latest Samyang primes. The 18,24, 45, 75. These are the size of crop sensor lenses. And not bad at all as optical quality. So, you pretty much have the small lenses already. Add the new Tamron 2.8 zooms too. All of these are only for Sony cameras now, but still - they are available.
If the compact AF Samyang primes existed when I left Sony for Fujifilm I might have considered. They look excellent!
I sold my previous system recently and technically I'm on the market for a camera and lenses. Before I was not even looking at Sony, but these small primes are really tempting.
I love my Canon 70-200 f4 L and it works really well adapted to the Sony A7III with the MC11 (less well with the A7RII but still mostly usable). The sharpness, compactness and lightweight means I rarely desire an f2.8. Just wish it was white as I shoot comedy shows (even the f4 works with the face detection and stage lighting) and it would be more discreet in black. The hit rate is higher with the increased depth of field. The Sony version does seem a little less sharp towards the edges and that could be down to including OSS.
the thought is not bad, and yes a 12- 100 f/4 lens is the equivalent of 24 -200 with a depth of field of f8, in daily use however you can use those 2 extra stops of light when hiking in the forests and similar situations , a full frame f8 lens will then have the exact depth of field but is slower which will result in you having to bring along a tripod and that will add a lot of weight ..
I did not understand why F4 becomes F8 on micro 4/3 ? Is that just about an equivalent depth of field or about the light too ?
Both. The 2x crop factor means you need to use 2x lower focal length on MFT to get the same angle of view, which means you must use a 2 stops wider aperture to get the same depth of field. This also means the light intensity will be 2 stops brighter on MFT in this case, BUT (!!) we must also factor in that the FF sensor has 4x the area of MFT meaning the whole sensor will collect 4x the light (2 stops) at the same aperture and shutter speed, which is why FF typically has a 2 stop noise advantage over MFT at the same ISO. So in that way e.g. 25mm F4 ISO100 on MFT is in end result the same as 50mm F8 ISO400 on FF.
@@Elgsdyr Thanks :)
How about if super fast f/1.0 lenses and faster are made for MFT...could that help them compete better against FF?
Cos what's the point? That would be prohibitively expensive
Nice job your best video to date
What about the Panasonic 100 - 400 lens?
Yeah, I love that lens; fairly sharp, very fast focus, comparatively lightweight, awesome video lens - 800 mm to 2160 mm (HD + extended teleconverter) on the long end. I can shoot with it all day long and even had it fall to the ground with a gh5 and both are just fine. The macro-like capabilities are astonishing as long as you manual focus as the in-focus range can be less than an inch for insects and flowers. It's a powerhouse.
@@dfusselman What do you mean HD + televonverter, is that the 2x + 4x digital zoom in the camera menu?
A couple of days ago just before the Olympus news I received a check from mpb for all of my Olympus high-end gear... Pro lenses their best high-end bodies... two boxes full, gone to them. For several years I kept both my Nikon and my micro four-thirds system using each one professionally and for pleasure going back and forth depending on the situation. When the Nikon Z system was developed I bought into it and after using both the z7 and Z 50 for almost two years found myself hardly ever using the micro four-thirds. The only thing I miss now are the relatively small ultra telephotos, although with my Z50 and some of their more recent kit zooms I'm coming pretty close in reach with better image quality in a very portable kit. I would rave about the micro 4/3 system to clients and Friends, and anybody else who would listen, but that was then and now is now.
for selling them?
First DPReview pushed FF and inferiority of MFT, now - when Olympus is to quit the business - they talk about MFT-like glass in FF world.
I think you got a point as a single system . I mean by that by having a 600mm f8 on a FF that has better hi iso performance seems to catch up to M43 but why bother unless you team it with some F1.4 35mm to 85mm AF where M43 can't go . It would make full frame more adaptable .
Right now , my main system is M43 (Lumix G85 and Gx9) for extended focals and portability but i have a FF Nikon D610 with some vintage af and manual focus, mostly for DR and rendition .
The point of MFT, like the 12-100 f/4 you started off with, is it is *not* a 24-200 f/8 and it *is* a genuine f/4.
The f-number is the light gathering capability of any lens. It is defined as focal length divided by iris diameter.
I.E. 100mm / 25mm = f/4
If you made that lens fit full frame it would still be a 12-100 f/4
The whole equivalence thing is basically nonsense and the DoF is a FoV thing due to image size. If you adapt say a 50mm FF lens onto MFT it is still a 50mm lens, it does not mysteriously change into a 100mm lens.
Imagine what some RUclips Photogs would rant about slow aperture "PRO" lenses...
I don’t think it will ever be technically possible to build a ff lens that is as compact as its m43 “equivalent”. Not only is the focal length twice as long, but building a compact lens that controls aberrations over the larger area of ff sensor is very challenging technically. I suspect that one would usually obtain better image quality with a m43 system if camera size is a design constraint.
As a landscape photographer, slow but high quality zoom lenses suit me fine, I just wonder whether the market(s) that might use them are large enough.
I aren't overly enthused by Canons new RF 'kit' zooms - slow, sharp in the center, but a lot of distortion at the wide end that requires IQ destructive correction. Something like a 24-105 f5.6-6.3 that matches the RF 24-105/4 but comes in smaller, lighter and a bit cheaper would be ideal, but it ain't gonna happen.
From what I've seen the Tamron 28-200 seems to be very good optically, it's f2.8-5.6 and at 70mm it's still f4! It's not completely weater sealed but has some kind of sealing at least against dust, and it's the same size of the Olympus 12-100 f4.
So I think it's a killer all in one lens, hope to see a review from you guys about it!
Editing one right now. - Jordan @ DPReview TV
@@dpreview well, that was good timing ahah, glad to hear that, can't wait to see it!
The most I have done with my mFTs, I do now with a 1" G5X II. Or have a look at the RX100 VI/VII it's 24-200 F2.8-4.5. It might sounds weird, but if you don't need that max DOF, 1" is the more attractive sensor size IMHO. If you want it small, you take it as a compakt or if you want that extra mm, you go with a bridge like the FZ2000 or a RX10IV. For me, mFT got a bit obsolete these days.
Love the pan shot cut to a still wide shot 👌😂
Something happened to Chris lav mic? I would love to work with some of these lenses if they were available on FF. I must admit it is only because you brought it up. I might have just ignored a f8 lens otherwise. People would have to come around indeed. Videos on topics like these are interesting. Thank you Chris and Jordan.
This might be hard to understand but sometimes you don't care for a narrow depth of field. For example when you try to record closeup video on your table. If I want that, I slap my 100 bucks speedbooster to Canon EF on it (with AF support but bad tracking capabilities) and get more light in the camera and shallower DOF.
I don't think I would want slower versions of the full frame or aps-c lenses I have now which are 2.8 or f4 except for the 100-400mm and 200-600mm. The only exception I can think of was the Canon 400mm f5.6 which was an excellent lens.
Sigma should make their 1.8 zooms available for mirrorless, that would be nice. Regarding slow lenses with good quality: Fuji has the 18-55 f2.8-4 and 55-200 f3.5-4.8 and their f2 prime lineup. There is also and equiv to the 16-80 f4 in most camera systems. I think a big problem for the manufacturers is, that people believe they need fast glass. Nikon was criticized heavely for their initial z-lens lineup, where as canon was praised for their pro glass for the rf-mount. I believe it is way harder to sell a good quality slow lens, than a medium quality fast lens, because in the end, they will be priced almost the same, but one is sexy, the other is not.
Can anyone build us a FF camera the size of an Em5 or Gx8 ? Because that plays into the equation too.
How about a M43 camera with quad pixel?
How about small manual focus primes with a focus tab????? 28mm 3.5 or 5.6 ????? I would be all over it. Fuji needs manual focus primes for their xpro line
Tony Northrop did a video on Canon’s 2020 Rf lens roadmap and the wildlife lenses are exactly what you are talking about and he strongly says it’s taking on m4/3s.
Intimate setting guys ... but where is the roaring fire in the background? Saving that for a winter video?
Great video! :D
I wish more lenses had OIS to go with the IBIS. The Lumix L mount system only the 70-200 zooms have OIS and the 24-105 zoom has OIS but all of the pro lenses don’t have OIS.
I would love to have compact lenses. Constant 5.6 on ff for landscape work would be great provided its sharp like mft wide open.
Wouldnt want max aperture at f8 or god forbid f11.
Would love a compact 70-200 f5.6 and 3-4 primes at f4.
While on the downside, you guys have given them an excuse to charge 2-3k for an f8, that way we might as well resurrect m4/3.
How much do you want to pay for a 600mm full-frame wildlife lens?
How much is that FF 600mm wildlife lens? Thought so....
Jesse A used Canon EF 500mm f/4.5 L lens is $2,100. A new Canon EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS lens is $13,000. If I was a serious wildlife / bird photographer, I might be happy to pay $3,000 for a new sharp EF 600mm f/8 L lens. A lot of birders might.
Thanks for discussing that autofocus part... Cause maybe a fullframe 800mm f11 wont autofocus as good as a m43 400mm 5.6
Mirrorless cameras can genrally focus at a much lower F stops (like F11), because all of the light gets to the main sensor where the autofocus happens. DSLRs need more light (like F5.6-8) because most of the light coming in gets reflected into the OVF and only a small part gets redirected to the seperate AF sensor.
@@madtoffelpremium8324 yes i know... But im now talking about mirrorless vs mirrorless.. Wherein a fullframe lens will have lower light transmission than a crop sensor equivalent.... The dof will be equivalent but the light is not the same
@@ezekielfernandez4077 The light captured would be the same, since (when you compare MFT and FF) the light coming out of the lens would have 1/4th the brightness but hit a sensor 4x as large, therefore also the noise level would be the same. I am not sure if that light density difference would affect autofocus that much before you reach an apperature at which deffraction ruins your charpness anyway.
In reference to the Olympus 12-100mm F4 Im amused at how miss-information keeps being said. The lens is F4 not F8, the light capability of the lens is F4, now the equivalent depth of field compared to FF is F8. But in the video Chris mentions that is F8, but fails to clarify whether is light gathering capability or depth of field. And F4 lens will gather the same light regardless of camera format.
Nice format, 'let's just shoot the breeze with Chris and Jordan'.
Would love F/8 zooms like that. Olympus 12-100 in particular is a favorite of mine. A such a handy superzoom but with good macro on top of it? How cool is that.
But one point Chris raised about SLRs... It's for a very good reason SLR world didn't see these kinds of lenses, and that's because the viewfinder would be so dim. User experience would be so poor even if the cameras were able to focus the lenses. With FF mirrorless bodies, a whole different story. Canon is supposedly making some slow but decent RF lenses so they're the first to venture into this realm?
Props for the Criterion Shirt!
No social distancing in Canada?
No there is only social distancing in America that's why the infection rate is low
Sounds like you guys are going to love the rumored F11 tele primes for canon RF
Hey, guys. I really enjoy your videos, but in this one you needs more precision or qualification about the m43 lens performance. You correctly praise the Olympus 12-100 f/4 lens, give the equivalence for full frame lenses (24-200mm) but then call it an f/8 lens. Please qualify this f-stop muddle. The DOF equivalent to FF may be close to f/8, the the lens’ constant aperture (light transmission) is f/4 not f/8. Some FF fan boys incorrectly think my 300mm f/4 (600mm equivalent) is a slow f/8 lens.
Wait, wha-? But is F4 on MFT really equivalent to F8 on FF? As I understand it, the DOF is roughly the same, but you are talking about much less light, right? And for shooters who don't prefer razor thin DOF, the MFT lens would actually be better in every regard, right? Maybe someone could explain?
You misunderstood how crop factor works. F/8 on full frame yields the same results as f/4 on MFT in terms of both, depth of field and low light capabilities. A MFT sensor is only a quarter of the size of a full frame sensor, so the total light that hits the sensor is the same with both pieces of glass. An image shot with MFT at 25mm, f/4, 1/250th, ISO 200 will have the same field of view, depth of field and noise as an image shot on full frame at 50mm, f/8, 1/250th, ISO 800.
The deeper depth of field of MFT is never an advantage, because to get the same results you can always stop a full frame down two stops. Can't do the same vice versa though.
@@youknowwho9247 Sure, but this sounds misleading. The question was whether F4 on M43 was equivalent to F8 on FF. Yes, the FOV is the same, the noise is the same, but according to everything I have read and experienced, the light will be dramatically less. That's because the light equivalent to F4 on M43 is F4 on FF, not F8.
I am not too concerned about equivalent DOF as much as equivalent light for my photography, so equating the two based on DOF is meaningless to me. This can be a strength or a weakness depending on your subject.
Maybe a lot of shooters prioritize razor-thin DOF, but in many cases I have seen it as an advantage to have the same light and deeper focus, which is why I think the comparison isn't apt. For my monies, F4 is F4 and I will work out the DOF separately if necessary.
@@jaywalker. Yes, when comparing a FF f/8 lens to an MFT f/4 lens it will transmit 1/4 the light per square millimetre onto the sensor. However, that sensor is 4x the size meaning the total light gathered, and therefore all aspects of image quality, assuming the technology behind the sensors is similar, are identical.
Your missing a few variables.
F stop is not an accurate measurement anyway... The F value in MFT does capture roughly the light that is stated (MFT F1.8 [often actually T2] is the same as FF F1.8 in light transmission). The issue arises in the sensor where the grid of the MFT has smaller pixels than FF and as a ratio of the area (squared) the frame around each pixel takes a higher value % of the image which then decreases light gathering and electronic transition to the CPU.
This is also why moiree is more of an issue in MFT than in FF - hence all of the low pass filter MFT cameras since the Lumix GX8.
The largest difference between MFT & FF Fstop # is actually the depth of field (focus field).
Portraits are better in FF but noses can easily get out of focus :), Kids running at twilight is also better due to compensation of the manual controls to freeze a tiny little bit more of the movement.
MFT is the perfect travel / wildlife / vlog / family video camera.
I'm thinking of keeping my MFT system for these very reasons, with primes 15 f1.7, 42.5 f1.7 8-18 and 100-400 zooms and getting a FF Astro setup with Pentax K1 mkii (in body star tracking), a bright wide prime around 14-20mm and either a 24-70ish zoom or a tilt shift portrait lens around 90-100 in perspective.
BTW, we should be changing the language of lens length to the word perspective or degree 'P' or '°' . This way we are all talking about the same thing.