I love full frame a lot because of the excellent subject separation , blurry background, greater control over depth of field, high dynamic range and specially low noise. Sony a7c series cameras are great compromise between sensor size and weight. I use APSC only for wildlife and birds for reach and specially for weight. I use same brand for cost savings on lenses. Had there been mft from Sony for wildlife I would use it.
Why the photography peoples every time uses the word "TONS" as for as gear concerned and editing tool concerned even it not crossing two digit in numbers.
For everyday, outdoor bright light, non-damanding photos the camera phone is more than adequate. For indoor and low-light, the APS-C cameras are the way to go, and APS-C everything is way smaller and lighter, and thusly less expensive; and for me the APS-C camera are way less obtrusive.
Just a heads up, APS-C isn't smaller or lighter than full frame anymore. The Sony A7C/A7Cii with the 24/40/50 G lens is smaller and lighter compared to the Fuji XT4/XT4/Canon R7. I've owned both.
Funny to illustrate the advantages of micro Four Thirds 'smaller and less expensive' using a camera which uses the same body (thus the same size and weight) and is the same price as the same manufacturers' FF camera. Also, it's wrong to say that the smaller formats give 'more depth of field'. You can get that deeper DOF on a larger format body by just stopping down as required, and the image quality will be the same as that smaller format camera at the same DOF. Also the 'smaller lens' thing isn't very much true - it's just that the selection of lenses available in the smaller formats includes much smaller lenses, but they have smaller apertures at the same f-number than the ones available in the larger formats. Take a similar lens with the same aperture size and often the smaller format lenses can be bigger, because they need a smaller f-number, and therefore more optical complexity to get the same aperture. Compare for instance the OMS 25/1.2 (20.8mm aperture) with the Nikon Z 40/2.0 (20mm aperture). The Nikon is the much smaller and less expensive lens. mFT is a great system because those many small lens options are available, whilst there's only a few in the FF systems (and not so many in APS-C), so the system as a whole fits that niche, but it's more to do with the market segment that has been defined than sensor size. It's a shame that most of the smaller bodies in that systems are obsolescent.
I shoot full frame as a general rule. If I need a medium formate for a commercial shoot, I'll rent a Phase. Each size sensor has it's advantages and disadvantages in terms of optics and it depends upon what you are shooting for (no pun intended). The main issue is diminishing returns on pixel density. When you start packing 40 and 50mp into a ff sensor, you start getting optical issues in terms of visible defraction because your running into the wall of physics in terms of light. Most of the time you don't have to worry about it for most applications though.
If you run into problems with full frame Camera with 40, 50 or more megapixels, then you do not use good enough Lenses ! Fx Lensrentals Roger Ciala tested the Sony 135mm 1.8 GM Lens and said it could be good for a 100 megapixels full frame Camera ! Now Fuji makes Lenses can handle 40 megapixels on APSC Cameras (equivalent to 93 megapixels in full frame and 157 megapixels in 33xx44mm sensor cameras).
@cameraprepper7938 That is very true. There is also a limit to what even the best lenses are capable of given the absolute physics of light (and the best lenses hit the wall of physics about 100 years ago). Fortunately, the resolution of any given print technology is far less than the original film or digital image, and fortunately you can fudge defefects with editing software if needed. Some of the AI software that eliminates distortion, defraction and CA is amazing.
@cameraprepper7938 Optics haven't improved much at all when you get down to the laws of physics. Consumer optics, yes in comparison to consumer optics 100 years ago, but in terms of the best optics available, little or no improvement has occurred. You're dealing with the actual physics of what can be done with visible light and that limit has been sufficiently met long ago. For example, there is an actual physical limit to how much resolution can be obtained and that is limited by how small a sensor spot can be made on a sensor. If an individual sensor spot is smaller than the wavelength of a given wavelength of light, no photons get collected. Larger sensors with larger "pixels" become necessary to collect enough light to work. There is a physical limit to any and all technologies imposed by the physics of visible light. That is a scientific fact.
Panasonic G9 II is larger than Sony A7 IV and they weight the same. Panasonic is 20% cheaper, but that's not a huge difference. People say the MFT lenses are smaller but that's not exactly true when you take image quality into consideration. To get the same noise levels you need two times wider aperture on a MFT and that lens will not be any smaller than a full frame lens with two times narrower aperture. For example, 25mm f1.4 MFT lens and 50mm f2.8 FF lens have the same field of view, same background separation and produce same amount of noise. These two lenses would have similar size and weight and the FF f/2.8 would be cheaper because it's easier to manufacture.
Owning several camera bodies, covering APS-C, full frame and medium format, I have to say that for a professional, full frame is easily the most practical, whilst for an amateur generally, APS-C is more than enough. For wildlife shooter, micro-4/3 is a good option. When it comes to medium format, I call my GFX100s, my mid life crisis camera. Yes, the images are superb, but 102mp is overkill for 99.9% of photographers. The 2 biggest advantages are the dynamic range of the sensor, which easily beats any full frame camera, and the lenses, with both Fujifilm and Hasselblad both making excellent lenses. In 2023, I pretty much just used my GFX but this year, I have mainly used full frame, mainly because it is easier to fit my 35mm manual lenses, onto a full frame mirrorless camera.
I know from experience as a Canon user that really good quality afs lens are few and far between, if you want longer reach than 55-200mm you have to use ff lens that are much larger in size so you do not have the advantage of smaller lens size as the apsc bodies. Fuji on the other hand are exclusive apsc lens so they are more compact with a good range of quality glass. Also mft cameras have excusive mft lens only and are therefore much more compact and offer a great range of quality glass. I also have Canon full frame with long reach lens, though are heavy so for bird photography my preference is mft with 100-400 (ff equiv 200-800) which I can easily carry in a small camera bag for the entire day. thanks for your video with some helpful tips
yeah APSC to Full frame is such a minor difference hahaha...even print out on papers...its still very very very close, we or talking about hair thin differences output
when comparing the photos in the end of this video from different sensor size cameras, they are so vibrant, beautiful until the sony a7rv hahaha dull, dreadful, flat colours, dark, then the fuji medium format comes back in to save my eyes with beautiful colours again hahahaha
Noting the arrival of the GH7, I think it is fair to say MFT now has more features than any other sensor format for hybrid shooters? It sets the new benchmark. What do you think?
I get cancelled or ghosted by my teenage kids when I try and take my FF camera (canon 5DIII) out in public in their company. MFT is now the clear path for me! But I would probably get bonus points if I had a Fujifilm or a film camera!
Jay, thank you for this video! I Knew these formats were "out there" but could not make sense of them until today, and I've owned both the full frame and the APS-C models in Sony & Nikon brands. Gotta admit though, the name micro 4/3 still baffles me as 4/3 = 1+1/3, which would make it 33% larger than a full frame sensor. I understand it also refers to the 4:3 aspect ratio, however. So it is yet another inconsistency in how cameras are labeled and differentiated. Ahh, maybe the "micro" refers only to the sensor size and the "4/3" refers only to the aspect ratio- that must be it, and maybe I've just talked my way through the confusion. 🤣 Or have I?
The diagonal measurement of the 4:3 sensor is related to a piece of history; the measurement is the diameter of the vidicon tube. There were four thirds DSLR cameras, micro is referring to no mirror for the smaller mirrorless design cameras with the same sized sensor. Hope that helped to clear up the confusion. 🙂
I love full frame a lot because of the excellent subject separation , blurry background, greater control over depth of field, high dynamic range and specially low noise. Sony a7c series cameras are great compromise between sensor size and weight. I use APSC only for wildlife and birds for reach and specially for weight. I use same brand for cost savings on lenses. Had there been mft from Sony for wildlife I would use it.
Sounds like you have a great system. Thanks for sharing your workflow!
Why the photography peoples every time uses the word "TONS" as for as gear concerned and editing tool concerned even it not crossing two digit in numbers.
In other words, "Lots". Have a great week!
Purchased Nikon P1000 .. failed or not? :D
It really depends on what you are using it for.
For everyday, outdoor bright light, non-damanding photos the camera phone is more than adequate. For indoor and low-light, the APS-C cameras are the way to go, and APS-C everything is way smaller and lighter, and thusly less expensive; and for me the APS-C camera are way less obtrusive.
Thank you for sharing your preference!
Just a heads up, APS-C isn't smaller or lighter than full frame anymore. The Sony A7C/A7Cii with the 24/40/50 G lens is smaller and lighter compared to the Fuji XT4/XT4/Canon R7. I've owned both.
Funny to illustrate the advantages of micro Four Thirds 'smaller and less expensive' using a camera which uses the same body (thus the same size and weight) and is the same price as the same manufacturers' FF camera. Also, it's wrong to say that the smaller formats give 'more depth of field'. You can get that deeper DOF on a larger format body by just stopping down as required, and the image quality will be the same as that smaller format camera at the same DOF. Also the 'smaller lens' thing isn't very much true - it's just that the selection of lenses available in the smaller formats includes much smaller lenses, but they have smaller apertures at the same f-number than the ones available in the larger formats. Take a similar lens with the same aperture size and often the smaller format lenses can be bigger, because they need a smaller f-number, and therefore more optical complexity to get the same aperture. Compare for instance the OMS 25/1.2 (20.8mm aperture) with the Nikon Z 40/2.0 (20mm aperture). The Nikon is the much smaller and less expensive lens. mFT is a great system because those many small lens options are available, whilst there's only a few in the FF systems (and not so many in APS-C), so the system as a whole fits that niche, but it's more to do with the market segment that has been defined than sensor size. It's a shame that most of the smaller bodies in that systems are obsolescent.
I shoot full frame as a general rule. If I need a medium formate for a commercial shoot, I'll rent a Phase. Each size sensor has it's advantages and disadvantages in terms of optics and it depends upon what you are shooting for (no pun intended). The main issue is diminishing returns on pixel density. When you start packing 40 and 50mp into a ff sensor, you start getting optical issues in terms of visible defraction because your running into the wall of physics in terms of light. Most of the time you don't have to worry about it for most applications though.
Some good things to think about. Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
If you run into problems with full frame Camera with 40, 50 or more megapixels, then you do not use good enough Lenses ! Fx Lensrentals Roger Ciala tested the Sony 135mm 1.8 GM Lens and said it could be good for a 100 megapixels full frame Camera ! Now Fuji makes Lenses can handle 40 megapixels on APSC Cameras (equivalent to 93 megapixels in full frame and 157 megapixels in 33xx44mm sensor cameras).
@cameraprepper7938 That is very true. There is also a limit to what even the best lenses are capable of given the absolute physics of light (and the best lenses hit the wall of physics about 100 years ago). Fortunately, the resolution of any given print technology is far less than the original film or digital image, and fortunately you can fudge defefects with editing software if needed. Some of the AI software that eliminates distortion, defraction and CA is amazing.
@@dangilmore9724 🤣100 years ago, you are living in the past
@cameraprepper7938 Optics haven't improved much at all when you get down to the laws of physics. Consumer optics, yes in comparison to consumer optics 100 years ago, but in terms of the best optics available, little or no improvement has occurred. You're dealing with the actual physics of what can be done with visible light and that limit has been sufficiently met long ago. For example, there is an actual physical limit to how much resolution can be obtained and that is limited by how small a sensor spot can be made on a sensor. If an individual sensor spot is smaller than the wavelength of a given wavelength of light, no photons get collected. Larger sensors with larger "pixels" become necessary to collect enough light to work. There is a physical limit to any and all technologies imposed by the physics of visible light. That is a scientific fact.
Panasonic G9 II is larger than Sony A7 IV and they weight the same. Panasonic is 20% cheaper, but that's not a huge difference. People say the MFT lenses are smaller but that's not exactly true when you take image quality into consideration. To get the same noise levels you need two times wider aperture on a MFT and that lens will not be any smaller than a full frame lens with two times narrower aperture. For example, 25mm f1.4 MFT lens and 50mm f2.8 FF lens have the same field of view, same background separation and produce same amount of noise. These two lenses would have similar size and weight and the FF f/2.8 would be cheaper because it's easier to manufacture.
Some excellent points. Thanks for sharing!
Full-frame cameras on vacation seem way too big and clunky. I like the size and style of the Fuji APC, especially the X-T30 or x-T50.
Those do sound like good choices for travel!
Owning several camera bodies, covering APS-C, full frame and medium format, I have to say that for a professional, full frame is easily the most practical, whilst for an amateur generally, APS-C is more than enough. For wildlife shooter, micro-4/3 is a good option.
When it comes to medium format, I call my GFX100s, my mid life crisis camera. Yes, the images are superb, but 102mp is overkill for 99.9% of photographers. The 2 biggest advantages are the dynamic range of the sensor, which easily beats any full frame camera, and the lenses, with both Fujifilm and Hasselblad both making excellent lenses.
In 2023, I pretty much just used my GFX but this year, I have mainly used full frame, mainly because it is easier to fit my 35mm manual lenses, onto a full frame mirrorless camera.
Sounds like you have a great set-up. Enjoy your photo adventures!
I know from experience as a Canon user that really good quality afs lens are few and far between, if you want longer reach than 55-200mm you have to use ff lens that are much larger in size so you do not have the advantage of smaller lens size as the apsc bodies. Fuji on the other hand are exclusive apsc lens so they are more compact with a good range of quality glass. Also mft cameras have excusive mft lens only and are therefore much more compact and offer a great range of quality glass. I also have Canon full frame with long reach lens, though are heavy so for bird photography my preference is mft with 100-400 (ff equiv 200-800) which I can easily carry in a small camera bag for the entire day. thanks for your video with some helpful tips
Great to hear your feedback about the MFT and APS-C!
yeah APSC to Full frame is such a minor difference hahaha...even print out on papers...its still very very very close, we or talking about hair thin differences output
The difference is when you want to blow it up for large prints or billboards.
when comparing the photos in the end of this video from different sensor size cameras, they are so vibrant, beautiful until the sony a7rv hahaha dull, dreadful, flat colours, dark, then the fuji medium format comes back in to save my eyes with beautiful colours again hahahaha
The Sony does tend to run a little darker.
I’m saving up for a hasselblad then im gonna ditch my canon ff while keeping my Olympus m43 😂
Sounds like a great plan! Good luck with your purchase!
Noting the arrival of the GH7, I think it is fair to say MFT now has more features than any other sensor format for hybrid shooters? It sets the new benchmark. What do you think?
It certainly has a lot of great features!
I get cancelled or ghosted by my teenage kids when I try and take my FF camera (canon 5DIII) out in public in their company. MFT is now the clear path for me! But I would probably get bonus points if I had a Fujifilm or a film camera!
They probably prefer you use your phone!
@@TheSlantedLens Sadly, you are correct!
APSC cameras are treated like stepkids when there are FF siblings in the same brand
That does seem to be the case. We do have some loyal APS-C users out there!
Jay, thank you for this video! I Knew these formats were "out there" but could not make sense of them until today, and I've owned both the full frame and the APS-C models in Sony & Nikon brands. Gotta admit though, the name micro 4/3 still baffles me as 4/3 = 1+1/3, which would make it 33% larger than a full frame sensor. I understand it also refers to the 4:3 aspect ratio, however. So it is yet another inconsistency in how cameras are labeled and differentiated. Ahh, maybe the "micro" refers only to the sensor size and the "4/3" refers only to the aspect ratio- that must be it, and maybe I've just talked my way through the confusion. 🤣 Or have I?
The diagonal measurement of the 4:3 sensor is related to a piece of history; the measurement is the diameter of the vidicon tube. There were four thirds DSLR cameras, micro is referring to no mirror for the smaller mirrorless design cameras with the same sized sensor. Hope that helped to clear up the confusion. 🙂
@@Martin-nu6ym Really appreciate your helpful clarification, thank you.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and knowledge about Micro 4/3rds.