Since when do we not use lights? Can one tell a story? Cinema cameras are built for heavy lifting on a fully crewed set. A GH6 can do anything if you control for constraints, plan your storytelling, and shoot well. Background blur is great for stills. Look at great films and directors and notice few ever use extremely blurred out backgrounds and many love deep focus.
"Since when do we not use lights? " I don't...and I shoot around dusk/dawn times....I like the 'natural' lighting conditions. I recently started macro photography too...and started using good macro flash, also without but with hood reflectors, side lighting fill, etc. etc. - after a while I dropped all that because I prefer the look of the existing light of a scene.
@@babajaiy8246 I love using natural light. I would never use lights if they didn't serve a purpose for the storytelling or illuminate a subject in a specific way that I liked. Watch Barry Lyndon again just for the joy of the light. Lots of times I use vending machines, reflective surfaces and so on to get the desired effect or highlight an object or person. Light is everywhere and sunlight can be your best friend or not depending on what you want to achieve. :-) Filmmaking and photography are satisfying crafts that give us lots of options to express ourselves. Enjoy!
Thanks for sharing this. I fell for the full frame trap. Actually recently ended up selling my Lumix S5II and Canon R6ii. MFT is just way more fun/practical. I'm currently rocking with the G9II, and the Fuji XS20, both powerful little beasts in their own right. Pairing the G9II with the Leica 12-60mm and the 35-100mm f/2.8. MFT has such a hugeee advantage on the telephoto side. I can fit the 35-100mm in my pocket, operate the camera with one hand. Full frame mirrorless lenses are unnecessarily absurd in price/weight (bodies looking mirrorless, lenses still DSLR'n). Like you mentioned, with all the tech getting better in these crop sensor bodies, it seems that form factor, usability, fun, enjoyment (all extremely overlooked qualitative aspects of the whole shooting experience) are starting to matter more than ever
I agree. All the reasons you gave made me chose gh7 over s5x. I will add a full frame camera to my arsenal tough but i will skip s5x and wait for s1hii as it will be a real monster for sure.
They are same size and weight just like the bodies. F2.8 on aps is same size and produces same results with f4 ff. The cost is also similar for lenses and bodies. I use Fujifilm aps. It costs and weights as much as full frame in bodies and lenses. The FF also has the advantage of f2.8 zooms option at greater cost, weight and size while the equivalent is f2.0 and not available in aps.
@@djstuc You clearly do not know enough to understand the basics of optics. Angle of view and absolute aperture size, so my comment was not accessible.
@@djstuc Ignorance is bliss. Lenses of equivalent quality in corrections, number of elements, have similar weight, size and price. Compare fujinon f2.8 zooms and the high quality large aperture primes not lenses compromised for marketing portability.
I used to have a GX85 and 3 lenses for travel. When the camera was stolen, I decided to replace it with a Nikon Z7 (I already had a Nikon Dslr and lenses ). My new travel set up is the Z7, 40mm 2.0, 24-70 f4 and the 50-250 DX zoom. It fits in the same small bag I carried my m43 gear... while being a little heavier. The 50-250 lens is cropped to 18mp on the Z7, but I'd say the image quality is better than my old panasonic 100-300. Autofocus is much better than DFD on he GX85. I see no point in m43 any longer.
When I was looking at digital SLR cameras I was put off by their size. Ended up buying an Olympus E420. Used it for many years. I currently have a Canon M50 and just bought the V10 for video. I also use a mid range Sony phone. I need portability as I'm less likely to leave the camera at home.
Only thing I'd ever need a fullframe for are those certain shots that need really shadow depth of field and the one or two stop improvement in low light. That's about it
Facts! I find it weird that many videographers push the Full Frame narrative when smaller setups tend to be more comfortable to work with. And as you mention, cinema is filled with amazing movies shot in Super35 (APS-C equivalent).
@@lionheart4424 yeah as many people pointed out this video largely applies to videographers, but took photography to some degree. Another thing I didn’t mention is all dynamic range and everything really only applies if you’re shooting log or raw for the most part as well!
On the S52 I see it as more flexibility. I use a Sigma 14-24 most of the time as I shoot indoors and will switch from full frame to Aps-C for lower light and more often just to extend the range of the lens. From 14mm standard Ibis to Aps-C high Ibis I get a great range so instead of 14-28 I get 14 - 58 and add the fact it has dual ISO makes the camera so flexible.
I was not aware that you get the same light gathering at equivalent aperatures with FF vs MFT. I also don't care so much about the bokeh and prefer the flexibility in nailing focus. Especially with editing software nowadays being able to add Bokeh in post so nicely. My big thing is that I prefer zooms so much more to primes. And those 1.7 zooms for Lumix MFT almost negate the size benefit of going MFT.
A lot of these format arguments get into very niche uses. For me, if your system gives you access to quality glass at a reasonable price, that's 80 percent of the battle. Then, you consider what you photograph/shoot primarily, which makes the argument for having MFT and FF on hand a better proposition.
I love your points here. For video, Ive done some professional level production from my zve10 mark 1 and for more substantial gigs, my a6700 is a true workhorse. No need for the heaviness, expensiveness, or overkill of the full frame for me. The fact that when I am on site having both cameras and several lenses im not being weighed down all day is the perfect additive to the APSC argument.
Focal length stays the same regardless of the size of sensor sitting behind the lens. If you're referring to field of view, the you're referring to a full frame equivalent field of view in terms of focal length. If the benchmark was super 35, then your FF cameras will have a crop factor of 0.66 and MFT will have a crop factor of 1.32.
It's a very interesting debate, for photo I feel like FF really takes the cake especially with the more recent compact bodies, for video I think Super 35 is really the sweet spot when it comes to depth of field and light gathering, you can actually get a f1.5 with the T1.0 series of lenses and a Super 35 f1.8 gives a f2.7. Plus lenses tend to be smaller and cheaper (just looking at anamorphic or cinema lenses alone). I'm considering getting maybe an FX30 for filmmaking or a A7Cii (mainly for photos considering Lumix hasn't released a body like it for FF and the S9 is quite gimmicky) as a next camera, although I know its basically a reskinned LX100ii but the D-Lux 8 looks pretty neat for traveling and social stuff haha.
I’m primarily a stills shooter. And at the moment my go to camera is the DJI pocket 3. Looking back, most of my own favourite shots were taken on sensors one inch or less. These shots looked great on my iPad Pro. And I found out the other day they look sensational on my 65 inch 4K tv.
I bought the LUMIX S5 at a favourable opportunity because of the FF sensor, so that I could finally use my old vintage FF lenses without a speed booster. I have acquired a taste for it, as there are surprisingly many extreme lighting situations in which I imagine that the large sensor does make a difference (low light and high contrasts), even against current APS-C competitors. Nevertheless, I often reach for my old Fuji APS-C because of its size and ease of use. Despite being 10 years old, the pictures are more than okay in normal lighting situations. As you say, even older gear will rarely stand in your way to take a decent picture, if you know how to do it.
for video I agree! But for photo 4/3 is not suitable not because photos are poorly stretched but because the perspective of a smaller matrix is different, the picture is flatter in the photo. And I can not understand why Panasonic is grasping at photo capabilities, remove the shutter altogether make it electronic, remove the viewfinder put, at least a 5-inch doomplay with the same brightness as it was but with etched glass so that we do not catch glare. Imagine a GH7 weighing 500 grams and a 5 "display with etched matte glass, this would simply be a victory for video!
I agree, I don’t care about sensor size for video at all. Images from m43 cameras are mixed with Alexa LF footage all the time. But when it comes to photo I do see a SUBSTANTIAL difference, especially in a studio environment
I agree, MFT is nice for video but for photo standard format you loose many pixels. Photo in raw has way more dynamic range in FF. FF is also 2 stops lower in noise and that`s huge.
Thanks a lot for this excellent and refreshing take on the topic. I fully agree that for most people, bokeh at f1.2 FF equivalent looks great when looking at it, but is difficult to manage, and often doesn't justify the hefty cost and weight of the lens even when available. There are however specific genres where lens selection does matter. For wildlife, as an example, great lenses under $2000 are plentiful on FF, while the only real equivalent costs $7000 on MFT. That said, there is a misconception that I want to point out: in low light, small sensors do great. It's in good light that they often suffer from worse dynamic range. If you were trying to shoot identical scenes on FF and MFT, you would use lenses with the same angle of view and the same aperture diameter. As a result, to get the same brightness, you would need the ISO on the MFT to be 4 time less than on the FF. For this reason, we should apply that factor 4 when comparing for noise and dynamic range between systems. Doing so, in fact, the GH7 is doing as good as, for instance, the GFX 100 II over the overlapping ISO range, and can be pushed far beyond the limits of the medium format camera. On the other hand, usually, the lowest ISO on smaller sensors is comparatively higher, and that's where larger sensors get the advantage in dynamic range: at ISO 80, the GSX 100 II has at least 2 extra stops of dynamic range compared to the GH7 at ISO 100.
In low light small sensors don`t do great, they have noise and a lot of it. And if as you say they also don`t do well in good light, then MFT is worse on all fronts. I cannot see that in sample pictures, MFT looks great with wildlife and is excellent with street.
I went from a Sony A7RII to a FujiFilm XT-2 (for a short amount of time) then a Olympus EM5 Mk1, I realised that 42MP was way overkill for what I do which is just posting on Instagram. Honestly, 16MP is fine for most situations. I enjoy a smaller form factor for travels and street photography, I prefer to carry a few small lenses for a crop sensor than one large lens with FF camera. I know enough about equivalent focal lengths that I know where to look for cheap crop sensor lenses. I just need a camera with a big viewfinder since I wear glasses, it needs to feel comfortable to hold, it can't be heavy and it needs image stabilisation. Id rather sacrifice a bit of depth of field than have to carry lots of heavy lenses around.
Awesome breakdown! Too many people get caught up in picking a side, partially due to the sunk cost fallacy (and to be fair camera gear does cost a lot), but a real professional uses the right tools for the right jobs. Saying one format is better than another is like saying a bigger screwdriver is better than a small one… but try repairing your glasses with a giant screwdriver, or building furniture with tiny glasses screwdrivers. Each format has its pros and cons, you just need to weigh them against your intended use case. And unless someone is well versed in actually using the formats they talk about, their opinions are really not worth much. I encourage FF users to actually try out MFT, and vice versa, instead of just dying on the hill of “my format is better”, cause that just makes people look ignorant and hurt. And shoot while you’re at it with sensor size battles, try out medium format cameras. And if you can’t, then you shouldn’t be making sweeping statements about things you have no experience with.
Since the digital advent, I've had three FX or FF systems in addition to several APS-C and a few other M4T cameras; all have had their purposes and advantages. Specifically on the full frames -- a Nikon SLR, a Lumix S5 and a Leica M10-R- with the sole exception of the Leica both are anvils. The lenses are humongous and I wouldn't consider them for anything other that some very serious landscape or portraiture where shallow DOF is required. OTOH, I've had Fujifilm APS-C cameras that rival or even surpass the FF systems. My present mirrorless Fuji X-T4 allows me 11x17 prints indistinguishable from the 40mp from the Leica M10-R. The system is light, I can carry one a normal zoom two standard primes and one tele zoom in a bag with comfort and noone will be the wiser. Ditto, I've got pro friends that regularly deliver 20x30" prints from their backup APS-C system instead of their MF _presentation card_ cameras displayed at the studio. HCB would have said _"resolution is overrated"_
I couldn't agree more and that's why I use MFT. I actually compared a Nikon FF with my MFT and at the same shutter speed at depth of field (not the same aperture) the image results looked identical. That means the main advantage of FF is a more shallow depth of field which I don't care about.
I have a Nikon Z50 (APS-C sensor); highest ISO I use in extremely low light is 2000. The fastest lens I have is Zhongyi Speedmaster 35mm f0.95. In post-production, if I see noise in my dark images I use Neat Video noise and flicker reduction plug-in to remove visible noise, grain, and flicker from video sequences. My next camera will be the Nikon Z6III.
My Black Magic Cinema camera isn’t better in low light than my Pocket 4k with a MFT sensor. But when exposed correctly, both my S1 and Cinema 6k are sharper and have better colors. The Pocket 4k is exceptional, but in normal lighting conditions both my full frame cameras edge it out. I’m Luts it’s easier to get better shots with the full frames. People don’t like to say it out loud, but full frame is almost light cheating. The Mitakon Speedmaster lenses are T1 and get insane bokeh for MFT. And this is without a speed booster.
The big factor is due to the price of the GH7 is so close to the s5iix Most normal shooter would go for the s5ii The hard Core Video shooter on a budget would definitely go for the gh7 but would most likely settle for the fx30
This is a common sense type of video! Thanks man! If there is a chance, I believe there is a point in our photography journey that we have to jump between brands, formats, Fujifilm simulations, Leica look etc. until we settle on the one (or two) that makes us a better photographer, but one has to think about the process without wasting as much money as possible. Buying second-hand is a good option, or taking advantage of promotions and discounts for new items. I settled on a Lumix S5 + S20-60 kit lens for my Landscape or Cityscape and occasional events as the 2nd or 3rd shooter. For the M43, it is Pen-F with 17mm, 25mm and 45mm f1.8 for my Street Photography and a Lumix GX80 + 12-32 pancake for EDC. These cameras are packed with features that I am sure I will not manage to cover. These, particularly the Pen-F, prevented me from considering other camera models and brands.
I like to have both. I find myself going between both quite a bit. If I need more reach, the crop body is the way to go. If I want high ISO performance and slightly slight better color, the FF camera.
I had similar thoughts when I was deciding between selling my OG G9 or S5. I loved the G9 to bits, it still stands to me as the ergonomically perfect camera, and the PanaLeica lenses are an absolute joy to use. Low light was never a major issue for me. But I found myself to just simply prefer the image output of the S5, both video and photo. I don't mean the T O N E H, I mostly use the 20-60 kit lens and 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 zoom and honestly do find it ridiculous when you have like a 2mm area of the subject in focus at a given time. But I do prefer the look I get from the S5. Don't know if it's the FF sensor or "color science". I just LIKE it. To be honest I do somewhat dread lugging around the bigger lenses (even the lighter ones within the system), and if I needed to travel more I might re-evaluate my system. Also, even the cheaper FF lenses are pretty expensive, at leat since the used market is nowhere near as big as with MFT. But at least for now Lumix FF serves my purposes better. I do still have the original LX100 for some f1.7 MFT goodness though.
@@Semmostaja this is totally fair! I definitely get that and the S5 TRULY has a beautiful image. I’m really sad I had to let it go. That and the GH6 make such beautiful video.
I got myself a sony a6700 last year and have no regrets...got good glass for it...and can take amazing shots to display on my 4k monitor - so it can be very satisfying. However, when the time comes for an upgrade...for the type of shots I like to gravitate towards...it's definitely a full frame next time, and its 'little' perks will get utilized.
I agree and don’t care what format over what the content is. That being said, I recently switched from Fuji to Panasonic, and got the S5II since it was on a fantastic kit sale. I’d have no hesitation in getting a GH7, but I’d be lying if I said I prefer micro four thirds look over Super 35.
First of all, bokeh is more than background blur. The most important component in the term of bokeh is the character and drawing of a lens. Fast lenses have more issues with optical abberations. A 50mm f/1.8 would perform better and cleaner on FF than a 25mm f/0.95 on MFT. Pictures taken with MFT have a more dry and digital texture than bigger formats. Better dynamic range, better resolution, less noise etc. makes me more relaxed when shooting. You know you have more space for critical adjustments and cropping in post. I shoot with MFT, FF and GFX, and the only reason why I sometimes choose MFT is because of size. And size, is very important in many situations. ❤
In the end, if you’re skilled and lucky enough, the idea behind the shoot, preparation, and understanding of the media-whether it’s film, slides, FF, MF, M34, glass, low megapixels, high megapixels, or any other format-can create a combination that surpasses any limitations of the media itself, becoming even greater than the sum of its parts.
A lot of guys could vastly improve their image quality, by investing $2.50 towards a pack of Walmart safety razors, instead of another $2,500 into a yet another 4K camera system. Think of it as a technology investment.
@@RhettThompsonFilm I will mail you some F'n safety razors direct from Walmart! Not just you, any content creator who does not know how to shave their face. You don't need a Red Camera or an Aria, you need to shave! Girls pick bear vs man in the woods, because bear is less hairy and scary! How long into a video would you watch a female content creator with a mustache or beard. I thought so! No razor sponsorships embedded in your videos, those are the worst, right behind Honey, NordVPN, World of Warships, and Wix!
If I am not wrong in order to get the best quality of any kind camera sensor you need to properly expose the sensor. And increasing iso is not properly expose the digital sensor its just increase the gain of the sensor. Its like listening very low music source with max volume is not good compare with music with normal db with normal volume
You sound confused, Increasing sensor gain only gives you faster shutter speed for handheld. Auto exposure does the rest, you can check your histogram.
You make a good point, but... Even though most films are shot on high aperture you have to take into account that films have good stage design. As a documentary filmmaker if I come to an ugly location that I have to shoot as a pretty one, full frame with a light lens can help. The dynamic range you mentioned is just marketing. I recommend looking at the measurements of the CineD site. Coincidentally, I now carry an S5IIX and a GH7 and while I have to say that Micro 4/3 has come a long way in terms of dynamic range, it's still nowhere near full frame. Especially the transitions in the highlights are softer and go down. The price is similar, the weight of the GH7 even higher. But I take that as an advantage, it's such a small tank. I also like the slowmotion and the small rolling shutter. I would say that this is why one decides between Micro 4/3 and FF at Panasonic. But even with Micro 4/3 you can blur the background. Buy a speedbooster and that's it.
Thank you! Super shallow DoF is so overrated! An Olympus 17mm f1.2 at 1.2 and 36” from target only has 4” in focus; this isn’t enough to even get a head in focus!
I have a 85mm 1.4 that I just had to have, thinking it would be the ultimate portrait lens. The actual useability at 1.4 is extremely limited, and the shallow depth of focus quickly got boring.
@@djstuc For macro, f5.6 at 300mm is huge. Unless you can focus stack, you typically need to stop down to something like f11. For macro, I see no advantage for a big sensor.
In terms of pure IQ performance, (which isnt really as important for many shooters as they think it is), FF still wins- at least when you isolate the comparison to just sensor size, not the tech/generation of the sensors. The GH6/7/G9II sensor is only a couple of years old, while the IMX410 in the S5IIX and many other cameras debuted in the A7III in 2018! Once (if?) that tech reaches FF cameras the gap will widen again. Whether that will even matter for most people is a different argument 😄 Love the 10-25 as well, loved the super-useful range, but again, FF caught up, with say the Sony 20-70 f4 being only a half-stop slower but offering significantly more tele range. And it's smaller, lighter and cheaper.
I prefer yhte rendering and outright image quality of my Sony A7Riii for portrait work, but still banging my Olympus with a bevy of fantastic compact lenses for everything else
Strictly speaking... The light gathering and low light performance are a thing of the lenses, not the sensor. You need a shorter, brighter lens to bring the same light to a small sensor. That is equivalency. The "best" DR is higher in FF because each photosite can hold more charge, increasing the highlight limit. This is of course general. Just as examples, with a very high gain amp, the A7S3 has very clean high ISO, and with dual gain parallel circuits, the GH7 (and many cinema cameras) has very good dynamic range at low ISO, and FF with circuits for stacked sensors have lower light gathering ability, same with global shutter. The "issue" is that at both ends, in MFT, you do not have the lenses. The brightest zooms are F1.7 (and they are great), brightest primes F1.2. At the long end, 200 F2.8 and 300 F4.0. Enough for me, but some professional use will want the depth of field of a 600 F4.0 (FF), which requires 300 F2.0. Those lenses would roughly require the same size, but they do not exist in MfT. In video, the problem is less because the image is typically downsampled to 4k anyway, adding bits of information and DR, so even at MfT you have a great image. I use both sensors, the MfT is faster at the same or lower price, and at ISO100 I see no difference thanks to DR boost. I use FF mostly with F1.8 primes where there is no alternative, and the 28-200 that is better than the 14-140 by a mile or two.
for videographers sure, for photographers sensor size defo a game changer(unless you shoot boring stuffs) * i wished i could just use sensors the size of my phone's, but i can't, can i? nope( you're welcome, I helped your algo)
I use A7S2 full frame for lowlight video & it’s amazing. Canon Apsc for photos in general and GH6 for daylight video or anything I want to look gorgeous. The GH6 has a really beautiful look. I have DJi pocket 3 and a pile of old Canons and Olympus etc plus some real old stuff and old video stuff too from VHS onwards but the GH6 is really nice looking footage.if I had to bin everything I’d keep the GH6….and the pocket 3 lol 😂
Interesting about IQ. I am not really happy with the IQ of my GH6, despite recording in 4k/5.7k and viewing it on a 1080p monitor. Exposed correctly etc. Thought it was the sensor size, but now I am stumped as to why
For the price of one Panasonic 10-25mm lens, I bought a barely used Sony A7iii, Samyang 18mm, Tamron 28-200mm. Sony a6400 + Sigma 18-50mm = 693 grams. Panasonic G9II body only = 658 grams!
The problem that 4/3 has is that they don't have much of an advantage. Right now the GH7 costs more than the S5IIX and weighs the same. Also the high quality lenes are super expensive and very heavy. The GH7 with the 10-25 F1.7 is more expensive, heavier, and gathers less light than the S5IIX with the Sigma 24-70 F2.8.
@@karlsma7245 1.7 fathers less light than a 2.8? Nooooo. Also the GH6 is a MUCH more full featured camera. As I like to point out we have 4k30 or 4k60 with crop vs uncropped 4k120 on the GH7 or 6k 30 with massive rolling shutter vs 5.8k 60 with minimal rolling shutter. GH7 costs more because it’s newer. That’s it. In a year the used and new prices will be basically the same.
@@RhettThompsonFilm 1.7 on M4/3 converts to F3.4 on FF. Because the sensor is half the size, you have to double the f stop. The GH6 has been discontinued. Once retailers sell out, it's gone
@@karlsma7245 not true. For light gathering a 1.7 is a 1.7. You can do the Tony technique of saying the noise performance is twice as bad so the blah blah blah but anyone who’s used these cameras knows you’re not exposing for a F3.4 when shooting a 1.7. No camera light meter or any technique devised by man would tell you this.
@@RhettThompsonFilm I'm sorry but you're wrong Take photo on FF at F1.7. Then crop in 50%. Suddenly all the noise has doubled in size. That's what what happens on a crop sensor. When you shoot at 4K60 on an S5, it has the same crop as an M4/3 camera. It also gives the same light gathering performance I also know this from real world performance. I own an S5, S5II, and the G95. I went on a cruise in Feb and took the G95 (same sensor as the GH5) along with two 1.7 primes. I couldn't shoot slow motion at dinner due to it struggling with low light. Had I brought either of my two FF cameras and my Sigma 24-70 F2.8, it wouldn't have been a problem
@@karlsma7245 noise isn’t exposure? Where is the SENSOR SIZE adjustment on my light meter? Also the S5 does not have the same drop as a m43 camera in 4k60. So many incorrect parts of your comments. I know this stuff is complicated but I have to point out where you are wrong.
Very nicely said/explained. For me I don’t find a MFT body being basically the same size as Full Frame body. I want the body big enough to be comfortable to hold and handle. Plus want the body big enough so there is enough real estate for the knobs & controls to be easily manipulated. Two main reasons I really like MFT for me is lens sizes. I prefer zoom lenses for most of what I do. 12-35 f2.8 and 35-100 f2.8 are my general use lenses. Comparable Full Frame lenses are substantially bigger and heavier. Not criticizing them, just the MFT lenses are better for my uses. Plus price difference between the FF and comparable MFT lenses is substantial. If I end up needing specific characteristics of FF, then would certainly get FF. But realistically for me, FF system wouldn’t be of benefit for my use. The MFT system is optimal for me. I think it can be easy to look at some specific specs and decide that one or the other is a little better.
@@mikes_perspective6580 when I first bought my GH4 it was so close to being an A7s but they only advantage was sensor size. Not much has changed since then for me personally hhaha
I agree but not on new sensors are better than the old (super 35 sensors from 2010-2012- Sony/Canon cinema cameras). They destroy the new FF/APS-C/MFT sensors for the filmic organic look.
MFT sucks in bad light, dusk and dawn is where the magic happens, night shots are also very nice. That`s where FF photography shines, MFT is good at day and has nice wildlife reach, also for video. Choose the sensor that fits your style.
I wouldn’t say they suck. They just aren’t QUITE as good. They’re still better than like the best Hollywood cinema camera was a decade or two ago and they still made plenty good films with them.
@@RhettThompsonFilm I don`t care about hollywood cinema cameras, it`s a bad example. Just capture the moment, 2 stops more noise and less dynamic range kills evening and nighttime for me.
@@brugj03 two stops! I thought it was one. It also really depends. I don’t have any issues with the GH6 and GH7s higher dynamic range than your typical MFT cam
@@RhettThompsonFilm I quote from dpreview: There is a ~.81 stop advantage with this APS-C DSLR's sensor over your camera's sensor. If we assume the noise increases in a perfectly linear fashion, this would mean you would get the noise equivalent of shooting with your camera at ISO ~1825 to get the result of ISO 3200 with that APS-C camera. There is a ~1.56 stop advantage with this full frame DSLR's sensor over your camera's sensor. If we assume the noise increases in a perfectly linear fashion, this would mean you would get the noise equivalent of shooting with your camera at ISO ~1085 to get the result of ISO 3200 with that full frame camera.
i love mft, but the lenses are just too expensive here in brazil, because everyone only uses the standard zooms theresn't much of a second hand market for the others lenses and the zooms expesive because of the demand
@@RhettThompsonFilmBrazil gets screwed on every product. I’ve heard they’ve got their own brands of budget guitars because a budget Chinese made American brand guitar is a small fortune
@@robmcd I remember seeing and hearing about the electronics markups in Brazil as well being ludicrous. I don’t envy that at all sorry about that it sounds terrible
Is ebay available in Brazil? All lumix m43 gear is very good prices in the UK. Just got the G9 and 14-45mm for £465 and that was, or nearest offer. Paid in full straight away!
@@RhettThompsonFilm honestly yeah! The hard part for me is just lens options for L mount keep growing. I mean 35-150 F2.28, 28-45 F1.8, I mean cmon that is crazy focal lengths and apertures which is wild
It's funny I keep hearing about how smaller sensors are no good in 2024. Um... they've never been better? And AI noise reduction can now make ISO 6400 photos on MFT look clean with hardly any loss in detail.
Thats a great point! We arent just dealing with raw sensor data. With anything that is processed at all, sensor size is only one factor and basically all video is processed unless shooting raw. Stills is a slightly different conversation but still.
You know I tried this once and found that I actually capped off the physics of the lens and it didnt get me a much brighter images than a non-speed posted F.95. I wish I didnt lose all the footage. :(
@@RhettThompsonFilm makes me curious if it was just placebo now. I may have noticed this quirk if I had access to a native fitment f0.95 lems at the time. Interesting thanks 🙂👍🏾
I usually take it as M4/3 are for real content creators who filmmaker for content versus Full frame is for actual professional work. M4/3 always have better features and frame rates. Why not want that versus “better image quality”
Если бы они действительно стоили дешевле чем объективы от полного кадра Tamron, Sigma, Meike и многих китайских марок, то это было бы действительно так. Но зачастую действительно качественные объективы от м4/3 или APSC стоят как объективы от полного кадра. Маркетологов не обманешь
This is one of those logical arguments that is slowly losing ground. The Bodies on APSC, MFT and FF in some Brands are only $200 - $400 in difference. Some Brands are not like Canon in lens size where Big is cool for Canon. LUMIX new S Line Prime is a identication that smaller lighter is coming to Full Frame and here to stay. We knew this future in “smaller” was coming, so the decision to stay MFT or APSC is purely personal now, but looking for advantages to stay in the past are getting less and less. We may be looking at this wrong, the gap is closing to the point that the only difference will be the mount type alone.
It`s almost always MFT guys trying to compensate for something, that triggers the Sony guys who hold their FF sacret. But both is nice, i photograph FF but in a dark or low lit environment. I need al the light i can get. For wildlife or maybe small size MFT is nice, due to extra reach.
Full frame sensors do not capture more light than crop or m43. They do not collect less light than medium format. That is not the reason they have better low light performance. You can check this yourself quite easily. Take a shot on a full frame camera, keep all settings the same, change it to crop mode, take the shot again. Exposure is the same. Noise is the same, low light performance is the same. By switching to crop mode you don’t lose a stop, you don’t get more noise, you don’t get worse low light performance. Full frame cameras have better low light performance for two reasons. First and foremost they are usually the manufacturers flagship professional devices, so they get the latest sensors with the best performance and firmware which are constantly improving; at least in terms of dynamic range. Secondly, on average they tend to have a larger pixel pitch, this is the amount of photocells per pixel on the sensor. They could do the same thing with crop sensor cameras if they made them lower resolution. However companies are ever pushing for more megapixels, if you made a 12Mp crop sensor with today’s sensor technology it would totally outperform the current 50Mp full frame offerings in terms of dynamic range and low light performance. There are some other limitations with a small sensor but this is due to the limitations of glass being able to focus light onto a smaller area without a loss in quality.
Noise is not the same when you crop, you’re doing the same thing as when you press the 100% zoom button, you are stretching the image to make the noise more visible when two shots are viewed at the same total size.
The more important thing for 'Low Light' is the SIZE of the pixels and NOT the sensor. A 12 megapixel full frame will allow much more light then a 45 megapixel full frame simply because the 12 megapixel camera has BIGGER pixels. I wish the made a 12 large megapixel camera I would trash alot of my cameras at present.
If your not printing big get a crop sesnor....studio landscapes ..prints ..full frame or meduim format wins....and micro 4 3rds are great for wildlife ..street photography
@@nevvanclarke9225 yeah I also think I really should’ve mentioned that this is coming mostly from a video standpoint, but yea definitely. Even the 100mp high res mode has some issues occasionally
@@RhettThompsonFilm I really probably need to have my own RUclips channel. I've been thinking about it mate. I do like your videos. It's just time for me but yeah, you made some really good points mate and I like your channel and I've hit the subscribe button.
It's funny....... when I was being taught photography back in the 1990's, it was all about composition and where to place your subject, and blurring the background was rarely, if ever, discussed. And you couldn't be a professional if you shot 35mm... it had to be medium format. Same debate now, just re-bagged.
@@gromit576 that’s clearly not true because songs are not dedicated video tools and like almost everything that would possibly be beneficial for a professional. That being said, they are really good for certain things and good enough for others.
It took me a few minutes to work out that you are a video centric channel. Although the same applies to the still photos. Not interested in video, as a lot of people seem to be at the moment.
I DO typically mention this but failed to do so in this video. Sparked more discussion so maybe it wasnt the worst thing. Although I still do a lot of photos!
@@RhettThompsonFilm Waiting for my Tesla stock to 10x, so I can upgrade from my Sony A7RV to a full suite of Hasselblad gear. I figure $75k - $100k should get me a good starter kit ... the camera and a few lenses. I'm expecting Tesla will skyrocket in the next 24 months. Megapacks alone will be bigger than their car production, and more profitable. Robotaxis is a trillion dollar business by itself, and humanoid bots is a 10 trillion dollar market. I should be taking fantastic pictures of carpet fibers, dust, lint, bird droppings, or whatever else I feel like when I'm retired from Tesla's wealth.
It sounds like you need a cell phone, which gives respectable dynamic range, depth of filed, image quality, and portability. The gap between dedicated cameras and cell phones is closing every year.
@@TheTensecondz I clearly layout why full frame DOES matter and why it doesn’t specifically. Cell phone doesn’t check any boxes and even if it does it obviously misses the mark on being a professional interchangeable lens system. Can I get good dynamic range or low light performance or a full frame equivalent of F2.8-F5.6 of real blur on a phone ? No absolutely not
Oopsy! Theres a small speaker button by the play button. You must have hit that! Try hitting it again OR pressing the M button to unmute. If there is a speaker problem you can hit C to turn on subtitles as well!
Wrong. In the film era, if you wanted the absolute best quality photo you shot large format with a single sheet of film using a Speed Graphic for fine arts photography. Ansel Adams shot large format landscapes. Portrait, fashion, art photography shot medium format. And "run and gun" was lowest quality 35mm small format. Henry Carter Bresson and run and gun street photographers shot "small format" sacrificing quality for quantity. Quality, then as now, can be directly mapped to the size of the imaging plane. Film or digital. Period. I don't know why RUclipsrs drag out this old chestnut. Out of content ideas, perhaps? Want the best quality? FF. Full stop. They're relatively cheap now. Get yourself a used one -- a (brilliant) Nikon D700, a Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AF-D. Good to go -- FF, for the cost of some amateur cropped sensor nonsense.
@@AI3Dorinte how is this clickbait by the way? I really don’t know if it matches that description. Just a short discussion on my personal thoughts. I also do highly in depth reviews and analysis of lenses cameras and other equipment and want to talk about cinematography and lighting in the future! Anyone of you could educate me that would be great.
Well said!
I use FF and MFT side by side without being dogmatic about either format.
Same here! Having both is honestly ideal to me
Since when do we not use lights? Can one tell a story? Cinema cameras are built for heavy lifting on a fully crewed set. A GH6 can do anything if you control for constraints, plan your storytelling, and shoot well. Background blur is great for stills. Look at great films and directors and notice few ever use extremely blurred out backgrounds and many love deep focus.
@@GlobeHackers when I talk about people not using lights I mostly mean S*ny users.
"Since when do we not use lights? "
I don't...and I shoot around dusk/dawn times....I like the 'natural' lighting conditions.
I recently started macro photography too...and started using good macro flash, also without but with hood reflectors, side lighting fill, etc. etc. - after a while I dropped all that because I prefer the look of the existing light of a scene.
@@babajaiy8246 they talking about videos ... photographers as opposed to videographers definitely care about sensor size(I wished we didn't have to)
@@babajaiy8246 I love using natural light. I would never use lights if they didn't serve a purpose for the storytelling or illuminate a subject in a specific way that I liked. Watch Barry Lyndon again just for the joy of the light. Lots of times I use vending machines, reflective surfaces and so on to get the desired effect or highlight an object or person. Light is everywhere and sunlight can be your best friend or not depending on what you want to achieve. :-) Filmmaking and photography are satisfying crafts that give us lots of options to express ourselves. Enjoy!
Agreed
I tend to grab my m43 far more than my ff simply because I prefer a smaller kit when I'm hiking or traveling.
For sure! MFT is king for stuff like that
Thanks for sharing this. I fell for the full frame trap. Actually recently ended up selling my Lumix S5II and Canon R6ii. MFT is just way more fun/practical. I'm currently rocking with the G9II, and the Fuji XS20, both powerful little beasts in their own right. Pairing the G9II with the Leica 12-60mm and the 35-100mm f/2.8. MFT has such a hugeee advantage on the telephoto side. I can fit the 35-100mm in my pocket, operate the camera with one hand. Full frame mirrorless lenses are unnecessarily absurd in price/weight (bodies looking mirrorless, lenses still DSLR'n). Like you mentioned, with all the tech getting better in these crop sensor bodies, it seems that form factor, usability, fun, enjoyment (all extremely overlooked qualitative aspects of the whole shooting experience) are starting to matter more than ever
I cant wait for my Tesla stock to skyrocket so I can get a $50k Hasselblad setup. Most of my photography is taking pictures of dust and lint.
I agree. All the reasons you gave made me chose gh7 over s5x. I will add a full frame camera to my arsenal tough but i will skip s5x and wait for s1hii as it will be a real monster for sure.
The s1HII will be incredible if it can do 8K 30 and 6K 120FPS no crop and pdaf.
I wouldn't mind getting a FF *camera*, but I don't want to buy or carry around those huge and expensive FF fast lenses. No way.
Some full frame lenses arent too bad like the Lumix or Sigma primes but the zooms get WILD. The full frame 70-200 is a monster.
They are same size and weight just like the bodies. F2.8 on aps is same size and produces same results with f4 ff. The cost is also similar for lenses and bodies. I use Fujifilm aps. It costs and weights as much as full frame in bodies and lenses. The FF also has the advantage of f2.8 zooms option at greater cost, weight and size while the equivalent is f2.0 and not available in aps.
@@djstuc You clearly do not know enough to understand the basics of optics. Angle of view and absolute aperture size, so my comment was not accessible.
@@djstuc Ignorance is bliss. Lenses of equivalent quality in corrections, number of elements, have similar weight, size and price. Compare fujinon f2.8 zooms and the high quality large aperture primes not lenses compromised for marketing portability.
I used to have a GX85 and 3 lenses for travel. When the camera was stolen, I decided to replace it with a Nikon Z7 (I already had a Nikon Dslr and lenses ). My new travel set up is the Z7, 40mm 2.0, 24-70 f4 and the 50-250 DX zoom. It fits in the same small bag I carried my m43 gear... while being a little heavier. The 50-250 lens is cropped to 18mp on the Z7, but I'd say the image quality is better than my old panasonic 100-300. Autofocus is much better than DFD on he GX85. I see no point in m43 any longer.
When I was looking at digital SLR cameras I was put off by their size. Ended up buying an Olympus E420. Used it for many years. I currently have a Canon M50 and just bought the V10 for video. I also use a mid range Sony phone. I need portability as I'm less likely to leave the camera at home.
Only thing I'd ever need a fullframe for are those certain shots that need really shadow depth of field and the one or two stop improvement in low light. That's about it
Facts! I find it weird that many videographers push the Full Frame narrative when smaller setups tend to be more comfortable to work with.
And as you mention, cinema is filled with amazing movies shot in Super35 (APS-C equivalent).
@@lionheart4424 yeah as many people pointed out this video largely applies to videographers, but took photography to some degree.
Another thing I didn’t mention is all dynamic range and everything really only applies if you’re shooting log or raw for the most part as well!
On the S52 I see it as more flexibility. I use a Sigma 14-24 most of the time as I shoot indoors and will switch from full frame to Aps-C for lower light and more often just to extend the range of the lens. From 14mm standard Ibis to Aps-C high Ibis I get a great range so instead of 14-28 I get 14 - 58 and add the fact it has dual ISO makes the camera so flexible.
I was not aware that you get the same light gathering at equivalent aperatures with FF vs MFT. I also don't care so much about the bokeh and prefer the flexibility in nailing focus. Especially with editing software nowadays being able to add Bokeh in post so nicely. My big thing is that I prefer zooms so much more to primes. And those 1.7 zooms for Lumix MFT almost negate the size benefit of going MFT.
A lot of these format arguments get into very niche uses. For me, if your system gives you access to quality glass at a reasonable price, that's 80 percent of the battle. Then, you consider what you photograph/shoot primarily, which makes the argument for having MFT and FF on hand a better proposition.
I love your points here. For video, Ive done some professional level production from my zve10 mark 1 and for more substantial gigs, my a6700 is a true workhorse. No need for the heaviness, expensiveness, or overkill of the full frame for me. The fact that when I am on site having both cameras and several lenses im not being weighed down all day is the perfect additive to the APSC argument.
@@tdavis7396 and with Sony if you ever want A full frame camera in the future and have a few lenses around already it’s more or less seamless
@@RhettThompsonFilm exactly
I like that when I put a 12mm lens on my full frame it's 12mm and not 19.2
@@nelsono4315 just get lenses dedicated to your system
Focal length stays the same regardless of the size of sensor sitting behind the lens. If you're referring to field of view, the you're referring to a full frame equivalent field of view in terms of focal length. If the benchmark was super 35, then your FF cameras will have a crop factor of 0.66 and MFT will have a crop factor of 1.32.
It's a very interesting debate, for photo I feel like FF really takes the cake especially with the more recent compact bodies, for video I think Super 35 is really the sweet spot when it comes to depth of field and light gathering, you can actually get a f1.5 with the T1.0 series of lenses and a Super 35 f1.8 gives a f2.7. Plus lenses tend to be smaller and cheaper (just looking at anamorphic or cinema lenses alone).
I'm considering getting maybe an FX30 for filmmaking or a A7Cii (mainly for photos considering Lumix hasn't released a body like it for FF and the S9 is quite gimmicky) as a next camera, although I know its basically a reskinned LX100ii but the D-Lux 8 looks pretty neat for traveling and social stuff haha.
I’m primarily a stills shooter. And at the moment my go to camera is the DJI pocket 3.
Looking back, most of my own favourite shots were taken on sensors one inch or less. These shots looked great on my iPad Pro. And I found out the other day they look sensational on my 65 inch 4K tv.
Shoot what you like, your sensor doesn`t make your pics better or worse. It`s a matter of creative priority.
I bought the LUMIX S5 at a favourable opportunity because of the FF sensor, so that I could finally use my old vintage FF lenses without a speed booster. I have acquired a taste for it, as there are surprisingly many extreme lighting situations in which I imagine that the large sensor does make a difference (low light and high contrasts), even against current APS-C competitors. Nevertheless, I often reach for my old Fuji APS-C because of its size and ease of use. Despite being 10 years old, the pictures are more than okay in normal lighting situations. As you say, even older gear will rarely stand in your way to take a decent picture, if you know how to do it.
for video I agree! But for photo 4/3 is not suitable not because photos are poorly stretched but because the perspective of a smaller matrix is different, the picture is flatter in the photo. And I can not understand why Panasonic is grasping at photo capabilities, remove the shutter altogether make it electronic, remove the viewfinder put, at least a 5-inch doomplay with the same brightness as it was but with etched glass so that we do not catch glare. Imagine a GH7 weighing 500 grams and a 5 "display with etched matte glass, this would simply be a victory for video!
??? I Not agree!!!
@@stehlealexander Why?
I agree, I don’t care about sensor size for video at all. Images from m43 cameras are mixed with Alexa LF footage all the time. But when it comes to photo I do see a SUBSTANTIAL difference, especially in a studio environment
I agree, MFT is nice for video but for photo standard format you loose many pixels. Photo in raw has way more dynamic range in FF. FF is also 2 stops lower in noise and that`s huge.
Thanks a lot for this excellent and refreshing take on the topic. I fully agree that for most people, bokeh at f1.2 FF equivalent looks great when looking at it, but is difficult to manage, and often doesn't justify the hefty cost and weight of the lens even when available. There are however specific genres where lens selection does matter. For wildlife, as an example, great lenses under $2000 are plentiful on FF, while the only real equivalent costs $7000 on MFT.
That said, there is a misconception that I want to point out: in low light, small sensors do great. It's in good light that they often suffer from worse dynamic range. If you were trying to shoot identical scenes on FF and MFT, you would use lenses with the same angle of view and the same aperture diameter. As a result, to get the same brightness, you would need the ISO on the MFT to be 4 time less than on the FF. For this reason, we should apply that factor 4 when comparing for noise and dynamic range between systems. Doing so, in fact, the GH7 is doing as good as, for instance, the GFX 100 II over the overlapping ISO range, and can be pushed far beyond the limits of the medium format camera. On the other hand, usually, the lowest ISO on smaller sensors is comparatively higher, and that's where larger sensors get the advantage in dynamic range: at ISO 80, the GSX 100 II has at least 2 extra stops of dynamic range compared to the GH7 at ISO 100.
In low light small sensors don`t do great, they have noise and a lot of it. And if as you say they also don`t do well in good light, then MFT is worse on all fronts.
I cannot see that in sample pictures, MFT looks great with wildlife and is excellent with street.
I went from a Sony A7RII to a FujiFilm XT-2 (for a short amount of time) then a Olympus EM5 Mk1, I realised that 42MP was way overkill for what I do which is just posting on Instagram. Honestly, 16MP is fine for most situations. I enjoy a smaller form factor for travels and street photography, I prefer to carry a few small lenses for a crop sensor than one large lens with FF camera. I know enough about equivalent focal lengths that I know where to look for cheap crop sensor lenses. I just need a camera with a big viewfinder since I wear glasses, it needs to feel comfortable to hold, it can't be heavy and it needs image stabilisation. Id rather sacrifice a bit of depth of field than have to carry lots of heavy lenses around.
You make some of the better m43 vids! Thank you man
facts
@@SteveMayedaTV high praise!
Awesome breakdown!
Too many people get caught up in picking a side, partially due to the sunk cost fallacy (and to be fair camera gear does cost a lot), but a real professional uses the right tools for the right jobs.
Saying one format is better than another is like saying a bigger screwdriver is better than a small one… but try repairing your glasses with a giant screwdriver, or building furniture with tiny glasses screwdrivers.
Each format has its pros and cons, you just need to weigh them against your intended use case.
And unless someone is well versed in actually using the formats they talk about, their opinions are really not worth much.
I encourage FF users to actually try out MFT, and vice versa, instead of just dying on the hill of “my format is better”, cause that just makes people look ignorant and hurt.
And shoot while you’re at it with sensor size battles, try out medium format cameras.
And if you can’t, then you shouldn’t be making sweeping statements about things you have no experience with.
Since the digital advent, I've had three FX or FF systems in addition to several APS-C and a few other M4T cameras; all have had their purposes and advantages. Specifically on the full frames -- a Nikon SLR, a Lumix S5 and a Leica M10-R- with the sole exception of the Leica both are anvils. The lenses are humongous and I wouldn't consider them for anything other that some very serious landscape or portraiture where shallow DOF is required.
OTOH, I've had Fujifilm APS-C cameras that rival or even surpass the FF systems. My present mirrorless Fuji X-T4 allows me 11x17 prints indistinguishable from the 40mp from the Leica M10-R. The system is light, I can carry one a normal zoom two standard primes and one tele zoom in a bag with comfort and noone will be the wiser.
Ditto, I've got pro friends that regularly deliver 20x30" prints from their backup APS-C system instead of their MF _presentation card_ cameras displayed at the studio.
HCB would have said _"resolution is overrated"_
I couldn't agree more and that's why I use MFT. I actually compared a Nikon FF with my MFT and at the same shutter speed at depth of field (not the same aperture) the image results looked identical. That means the main advantage of FF is a more shallow depth of field which I don't care about.
I have a Nikon Z50 (APS-C sensor); highest ISO I use in extremely low light is 2000. The fastest lens I have is Zhongyi Speedmaster 35mm f0.95. In post-production, if I see noise in my dark images I use Neat Video noise and flicker reduction plug-in to remove visible noise, grain, and flicker from video sequences. My next camera will be the Nikon Z6III.
Focus depth once was a very valued feature, but it’s now devalued as „flat“ image…
My Black Magic Cinema camera isn’t better in low light than my Pocket 4k with a MFT sensor. But when exposed correctly, both my S1 and Cinema 6k are sharper and have better colors.
The Pocket 4k is exceptional, but in normal lighting conditions both my full frame cameras edge it out. I’m Luts it’s easier to get better shots with the full frames. People don’t like to say it out loud, but full frame is almost light cheating.
The Mitakon Speedmaster lenses are T1 and get insane bokeh for MFT. And this is without a speed booster.
The big factor is due to the price of the GH7 is so close to the s5iix
Most normal shooter would go for the s5ii
The hard Core Video shooter on a budget would definitely go for the gh7 but would most likely settle for the fx30
I think once it isnt so new itll be a lot closer. For now the G9ii will do for anyone on a budget for the most part.
This is a common sense type of video! Thanks man! If there is a chance, I believe there is a point in our photography journey that we have to jump between brands, formats, Fujifilm simulations, Leica look etc. until we settle on the one (or two) that makes us a better photographer, but one has to think about the process without wasting as much money as possible. Buying second-hand is a good option, or taking advantage of promotions and discounts for new items.
I settled on a Lumix S5 + S20-60 kit lens for my Landscape or Cityscape and occasional events as the 2nd or 3rd shooter. For the M43, it is Pen-F with 17mm, 25mm and 45mm f1.8 for my Street Photography and a Lumix GX80 + 12-32 pancake for EDC. These cameras are packed with features that I am sure I will not manage to cover. These, particularly the Pen-F, prevented me from considering other camera models and brands.
The Gx80 with 12-32 is such a nifty combo in a little package. It's definitely not perfect but few (if any) cameras are so 🤷♂️
I like to have both. I find myself going between both quite a bit. If I need more reach, the crop body is the way to go. If I want high ISO performance and slightly slight better color, the FF camera.
This! I always have said owning both is best if you can. If I had to choose it would still be MFT but when you need FF it really does come in clutch
I had similar thoughts when I was deciding between selling my OG G9 or S5. I loved the G9 to bits, it still stands to me as the ergonomically perfect camera, and the PanaLeica lenses are an absolute joy to use. Low light was never a major issue for me. But I found myself to just simply prefer the image output of the S5, both video and photo. I don't mean the T O N E H, I mostly use the 20-60 kit lens and 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 zoom and honestly do find it ridiculous when you have like a 2mm area of the subject in focus at a given time. But I do prefer the look I get from the S5. Don't know if it's the FF sensor or "color science". I just LIKE it.
To be honest I do somewhat dread lugging around the bigger lenses (even the lighter ones within the system), and if I needed to travel more I might re-evaluate my system. Also, even the cheaper FF lenses are pretty expensive, at leat since the used market is nowhere near as big as with MFT. But at least for now Lumix FF serves my purposes better. I do still have the original LX100 for some f1.7 MFT goodness though.
@@Semmostaja this is totally fair! I definitely get that and the S5 TRULY has a beautiful image. I’m really sad I had to let it go. That and the GH6 make such beautiful video.
I got myself a sony a6700 last year and have no regrets...got good glass for it...and can take amazing shots to display on my 4k monitor - so it can be very satisfying.
However, when the time comes for an upgrade...for the type of shots I like to gravitate towards...it's definitely a full frame next time, and its 'little' perks will get utilized.
I agree and don’t care what format over what the content is. That being said, I recently switched from Fuji to Panasonic, and got the S5II since it was on a fantastic kit sale. I’d have no hesitation in getting a GH7, but I’d be lying if I said I prefer micro four thirds look over Super 35.
First of all, bokeh is more than background blur. The most important component in the term of bokeh is the character and drawing of a lens.
Fast lenses have more issues with optical abberations. A 50mm f/1.8 would perform better and cleaner on FF than a 25mm f/0.95 on MFT.
Pictures taken with MFT have a more dry and digital texture than bigger formats.
Better dynamic range, better resolution, less noise etc. makes me more relaxed when shooting. You know you have more space for critical adjustments and cropping in post.
I shoot with MFT, FF and GFX, and the only reason why I sometimes choose MFT is because of size. And size, is very important in many situations. ❤
In the end, if you’re skilled and lucky enough, the idea behind the shoot, preparation, and understanding of the media-whether it’s film, slides, FF, MF, M34, glass, low megapixels, high megapixels, or any other format-can create a combination that surpasses any limitations of the media itself, becoming even greater than the sum of its parts.
Congratulations, and what is that you mean by this............because it sounds interesting.
A lot of guys could vastly improve their image quality, by investing $2.50 towards a pack of Walmart safety razors, instead of another $2,500 into a yet another 4K camera system. Think of it as a technology investment.
Ufff shots fired
@@WaddyMuters It's like a whole generation of men never learned how to shave. Most women pick the bear vs the man, because the bear is less hairy.
I cant tell if this comment is about me or not? Also if a shaving company wants to sponsor me I am down
@@RhettThompsonFilm I will mail you some F'n safety razors direct from Walmart! Not just you, any content creator who does not know how to shave their face. You don't need a Red Camera or an Aria, you need to shave! Girls pick bear vs man in the woods, because bear is less hairy and scary!
How long into a video would you watch a female content creator with a mustache or beard. I thought so!
No razor sponsorships embedded in your videos, those are the worst, right behind Honey, NordVPN, World of Warships, and Wix!
@@RhettThompsonFilm Men use to know how to shave! ruclips.net/video/yW0Lu7Uis2w/видео.html
If I am not wrong in order to get the best quality of any kind camera sensor you need to properly expose the sensor. And increasing iso is not properly expose the digital sensor its just increase the gain of the sensor. Its like listening very low music source with max volume is not good compare with music with normal db with normal volume
You sound confused, Increasing sensor gain only gives you faster shutter speed for handheld. Auto exposure does the rest, you can check your histogram.
You make a good point, but... Even though most films are shot on high aperture you have to take into account that films have good stage design. As a documentary filmmaker if I come to an ugly location that I have to shoot as a pretty one, full frame with a light lens can help. The dynamic range you mentioned is just marketing. I recommend looking at the measurements of the CineD site. Coincidentally, I now carry an S5IIX and a GH7 and while I have to say that Micro 4/3 has come a long way in terms of dynamic range, it's still nowhere near full frame. Especially the transitions in the highlights are softer and go down. The price is similar, the weight of the GH7 even higher. But I take that as an advantage, it's such a small tank. I also like the slowmotion and the small rolling shutter. I would say that this is why one decides between Micro 4/3 and FF at Panasonic. But even with Micro 4/3 you can blur the background. Buy a speedbooster and that's it.
Thank you! Super shallow DoF is so overrated! An Olympus 17mm f1.2 at 1.2 and 36” from target only has 4” in focus; this isn’t enough to even get a head in focus!
I have a 85mm 1.4 that I just had to have, thinking it would be the ultimate portrait lens. The actual useability at 1.4 is extremely limited, and the shallow depth of focus quickly got boring.
@@djstuc For macro, f5.6 at 300mm is huge. Unless you can focus stack, you typically need to stop down to something like f11. For macro, I see no advantage for a big sensor.
In terms of pure IQ performance, (which isnt really as important for many shooters as they think it is), FF still wins- at least when you isolate the comparison to just sensor size, not the tech/generation of the sensors. The GH6/7/G9II sensor is only a couple of years old, while the IMX410 in the S5IIX and many other cameras debuted in the A7III in 2018! Once (if?) that tech reaches FF cameras the gap will widen again. Whether that will even matter for most people is a different argument 😄
Love the 10-25 as well, loved the super-useful range, but again, FF caught up, with say the Sony 20-70 f4 being only a half-stop slower but offering significantly more tele range. And it's smaller, lighter and cheaper.
@@aldolega I’m waiting for someone to put the dynamic range boost into a full frame camera and get like 16+ stops or something bonkers
@@RhettThompsonFilm yes, that will be exciting. Maybe for the S3H... if the S2H ever comes out, that is 😐
Awesome video mate, great points.
I try my best! Haha a bit more off script than usually but 🤷🏼♂️
I prefer yhte rendering and outright image quality of my Sony A7Riii for portrait work, but still banging my Olympus with a bevy of fantastic compact lenses for everything else
Strictly speaking...
The light gathering and low light performance are a thing of the lenses, not the sensor.
You need a shorter, brighter lens to bring the same light to a small sensor. That is equivalency.
The "best" DR is higher in FF because each photosite can hold more charge, increasing the highlight limit.
This is of course general. Just as examples, with a very high gain amp, the A7S3 has very clean high ISO, and with dual gain parallel circuits, the GH7 (and many cinema cameras) has very good dynamic range at low ISO, and FF with circuits for stacked sensors have lower light gathering ability, same with global shutter.
The "issue" is that at both ends, in MFT, you do not have the lenses. The brightest zooms are F1.7 (and they are great), brightest primes F1.2. At the long end, 200 F2.8 and 300 F4.0. Enough for me, but some professional use will want the depth of field of a 600 F4.0 (FF), which requires 300 F2.0. Those lenses would roughly require the same size, but they do not exist in MfT.
In video, the problem is less because the image is typically downsampled to 4k anyway, adding bits of information and DR, so even at MfT you have a great image.
I use both sensors, the MfT is faster at the same or lower price, and at ISO100 I see no difference thanks to DR boost. I use FF mostly with F1.8 primes where there is no alternative, and the 28-200 that is better than the 14-140 by a mile or two.
for videographers sure, for photographers sensor size defo a game changer(unless you shoot boring stuffs)
* i wished i could just use sensors the size of my phone's, but i can't, can i? nope( you're welcome, I helped your algo)
@@looptimelapse yea I wish I would have mentioned this was largely a video topic cuz it is a different game with photos
I use A7S2 full frame for lowlight video & it’s amazing. Canon Apsc for photos in general and GH6 for daylight video or anything I want to look gorgeous. The GH6 has a really beautiful look. I have DJi pocket 3 and a pile of old Canons and Olympus etc plus some real old stuff and old video stuff too from VHS onwards but the GH6 is really nice looking footage.if I had to bin everything I’d keep the GH6….and the pocket 3 lol 😂
OM System has 1.2 lenses. There Are also 0.95 Lenses in the market for m43
Interesting about IQ. I am not really happy with the IQ of my GH6, despite recording in 4k/5.7k and viewing it on a 1080p monitor. Exposed correctly etc. Thought it was the sensor size, but now I am stumped as to why
I’d be curious to see some of your footage that you’re not happy with.
For the price of one Panasonic 10-25mm lens, I bought a barely used Sony A7iii, Samyang 18mm, Tamron 28-200mm. Sony a6400 + Sigma 18-50mm = 693 grams. Panasonic G9II body only = 658 grams!
@@gromit576 that is true for the price of a good lens you could get a bad camera and a bad lens
@@RhettThompsonFilm what makes the Sony A7iii a bad camera?
@@arkayngaming727 they had to make three. If they first two weren’t good enough id bed they didn’t figure it out by number 3
Yep I'm still using a gh5 and bmpcc OG
Always wanted to try out that Black Magic!
The problem that 4/3 has is that they don't have much of an advantage.
Right now the GH7 costs more than the S5IIX and weighs the same. Also the high quality lenes are super expensive and very heavy. The GH7 with the 10-25 F1.7 is more expensive, heavier, and gathers less light than the S5IIX with the Sigma 24-70 F2.8.
@@karlsma7245 1.7 fathers less light than a 2.8?
Nooooo.
Also the GH6 is a MUCH more full featured camera. As I like to point out we have 4k30 or 4k60 with crop vs uncropped 4k120 on the GH7 or 6k 30 with massive rolling shutter vs 5.8k 60 with minimal rolling shutter.
GH7 costs more because it’s newer. That’s it. In a year the used and new prices will be basically the same.
@@RhettThompsonFilm 1.7 on M4/3 converts to F3.4 on FF. Because the sensor is half the size, you have to double the f stop.
The GH6 has been discontinued. Once retailers sell out, it's gone
@@karlsma7245 not true. For light gathering a 1.7 is a 1.7. You can do the Tony technique of saying the noise performance is twice as bad so the blah blah blah but anyone who’s used these cameras knows you’re not exposing for a F3.4 when shooting a 1.7. No camera light meter or any technique devised by man would tell you this.
@@RhettThompsonFilm I'm sorry but you're wrong
Take photo on FF at F1.7. Then crop in 50%. Suddenly all the noise has doubled in size. That's what what happens on a crop sensor. When you shoot at 4K60 on an S5, it has the same crop as an M4/3 camera. It also gives the same light gathering performance
I also know this from real world performance. I own an S5, S5II, and the G95.
I went on a cruise in Feb and took the G95 (same sensor as the GH5) along with two 1.7 primes. I couldn't shoot slow motion at dinner due to it struggling with low light.
Had I brought either of my two FF cameras and my Sigma 24-70 F2.8, it wouldn't have been a problem
@@karlsma7245 noise isn’t exposure? Where is the SENSOR SIZE adjustment on my light meter?
Also the S5 does not have the same drop as a m43 camera in 4k60.
So many incorrect parts of your comments. I know this stuff is complicated but I have to point out where you are wrong.
Very nicely said/explained.
For me I don’t find a MFT body being basically the same size as Full Frame body.
I want the body big enough to be comfortable to hold and handle.
Plus want the body big enough so there is enough real estate for the knobs & controls to be easily manipulated.
Two main reasons I really like MFT for me is lens sizes. I prefer zoom lenses for most of what I do.
12-35 f2.8 and 35-100 f2.8 are my general use lenses.
Comparable Full Frame lenses are substantially bigger and heavier.
Not criticizing them, just the MFT lenses are better for my uses.
Plus price difference between the FF and comparable MFT lenses is substantial.
If I end up needing specific characteristics of FF, then would certainly get FF.
But realistically for me, FF system wouldn’t be of benefit for my use. The MFT system is optimal for me.
I think it can be easy to look at some specific specs and decide that one or the other is a little better.
Full frame only wins in low light by a bit. Dynamic range by a bit. And bokeh micro 4/3 pretty much wins everywhere else.
@@mikes_perspective6580 when I first bought my GH4 it was so close to being an A7s but they only advantage was sensor size. Not much has changed since then for me personally hhaha
Yes. Also, try to get to 600mm equivalent in under 1kg- it won't happen on FF.
LOVE
I agree but not on new sensors are better than the old (super 35 sensors from 2010-2012- Sony/Canon cinema cameras). They destroy the new FF/APS-C/MFT sensors for the filmic organic look.
There are FF lenses with F1.4 and even F1.2
OOOOH ?
@@RhettThompsonFilm Surprise surprise lol
MFT sucks in bad light, dusk and dawn is where the magic happens, night shots are also very nice.
That`s where FF photography shines, MFT is good at day and has nice wildlife reach, also for video.
Choose the sensor that fits your style.
I wouldn’t say they suck. They just aren’t QUITE as good. They’re still better than like the best Hollywood cinema camera was a decade or two ago and they still made plenty good films with them.
@@RhettThompsonFilm I don`t care about hollywood cinema cameras, it`s a bad example.
Just capture the moment, 2 stops more noise and less dynamic range kills evening and nighttime for me.
@@brugj03 two stops! I thought it was one. It also really depends. I don’t have any issues with the GH6 and GH7s higher dynamic range than your typical MFT cam
@@RhettThompsonFilm I quote from dpreview:
There is a ~.81 stop advantage with this APS-C DSLR's sensor over your camera's sensor. If we assume the noise increases in a perfectly linear fashion, this would mean you would get the noise equivalent of shooting with your camera at ISO ~1825 to get the result of ISO 3200 with that APS-C camera.
There is a ~1.56 stop advantage with this full frame DSLR's sensor over your camera's sensor. If we assume the noise increases in a perfectly linear fashion, this would mean you would get the noise equivalent of shooting with your camera at ISO ~1085 to get the result of ISO 3200 with that full frame camera.
i love mft, but the lenses are just too expensive here in brazil, because everyone only uses the standard zooms theresn't much of a second hand market for the others lenses and the zooms expesive because of the demand
Thats really unfortunate to hear. It does seem like North America has a lot of priority that many other countries dont have in the camera space.
@@RhettThompsonFilmBrazil gets screwed on every product. I’ve heard they’ve got their own brands of budget guitars because a budget Chinese made American brand guitar is a small fortune
@@robmcd I remember seeing and hearing about the electronics markups in Brazil as well being ludicrous. I don’t envy that at all sorry about that it sounds terrible
Is ebay available in Brazil? All lumix m43 gear is very good prices in the UK. Just got the G9 and 14-45mm for £465 and that was, or nearest offer. Paid in full straight away!
Great Video Austin 😉
I almost had to @ you ❤️
I love my full frame but not any more than my crop stuff haha
@@RhettThompsonFilm hahaha I love the GH7 with the 10-25 that thing crushes and looks amazing!
@@MatthewDangyou without the 10-25 Lowkey I might have moved to full frame
@@RhettThompsonFilm honestly yeah! The hard part for me is just lens options for L mount keep growing. I mean 35-150 F2.28, 28-45 F1.8, I mean cmon that is crazy focal lengths and apertures which is wild
@@MatthewDangyou also very true. MFT slowed down a bit.
Once the Leica 8-200 F.95 comes out tho it’s over with
So helpful!!!
It's funny I keep hearing about how smaller sensors are no good in 2024. Um... they've never been better? And AI noise reduction can now make ISO 6400 photos on MFT look clean with hardly any loss in detail.
Thats a great point! We arent just dealing with raw sensor data. With anything that is processed at all, sensor size is only one factor and basically all video is processed unless shooting raw. Stills is a slightly different conversation but still.
AI noise reduction is not a miracle cure, you will see it. And, eh.....about 6400 iso, you must be joking.
S5M2X still perform worse than GH7. I have both on my hands, and 4K120 on GH7 is a giant help.
Still prefer full frame tho, sadly.
It just limits your distance, like they got, "posh balcony with expensive suite for cubies or canys." Looks like ass.
Not sure I follow.
FF f0.95 lens speed boosted onto m43 is 🥰🥰
You know I tried this once and found that I actually capped off the physics of the lens and it didnt get me a much brighter images than a non-speed posted F.95. I wish I didnt lose all the footage. :(
@@RhettThompsonFilm makes me curious if it was just placebo now.
I may have noticed this quirk if I had access to a native fitment f0.95 lems at the time.
Interesting thanks 🙂👍🏾
I usually take it as M4/3 are for real content creators who filmmaker for content versus Full frame is for actual professional work.
M4/3 always have better features and frame rates. Why not want that versus “better image quality”
Yeah sure. Other than image quality, dynamic range, low light performance, depth of field and noise reduction. What has full frame done for any of us?
@@lemonkng3188 based
That`s right. Quote the life of brian.
Если бы они действительно стоили дешевле чем объективы от полного кадра Tamron, Sigma, Meike и многих китайских марок, то это было бы действительно так. Но зачастую действительно качественные объективы от м4/3 или APSC стоят как объективы от полного кадра. Маркетологов не обманешь
This is one of those logical arguments that is slowly losing ground. The Bodies on APSC, MFT and FF in some Brands are only $200 - $400 in difference. Some Brands are not like Canon in lens size where Big is cool for Canon. LUMIX new S Line Prime is a identication that smaller lighter is coming to Full Frame and here to stay.
We knew this future in “smaller” was coming, so the decision to stay MFT or APSC is purely personal now, but looking for advantages to stay in the past are getting less and less. We may be looking at this wrong, the gap is closing to the point that the only difference will be the mount type alone.
Lots of hostile comments on here that accomplish nothing. I don’t get it .
I feel like maybe some S*ny users discovered me?
It`s almost always MFT guys trying to compensate for something, that triggers the Sony guys who hold their FF sacret.
But both is nice, i photograph FF but in a dark or low lit environment. I need al the light i can get.
For wildlife or maybe small size MFT is nice, due to extra reach.
I love my new gh7 and s2iix but I still love my gh7 more
@@mikes_perspective6580 I know exactly how you feel!
The right tools for the right job and I go back and forth but MFT is still ahead for me
Full frame sensors do not capture more light than crop or m43. They do not collect less light than medium format. That is not the reason they have better low light performance. You can check this yourself quite easily. Take a shot on a full frame camera, keep all settings the same, change it to crop mode, take the shot again. Exposure is the same. Noise is the same, low light performance is the same. By switching to crop mode you don’t lose a stop, you don’t get more noise, you don’t get worse low light performance.
Full frame cameras have better low light performance for two reasons. First and foremost they are usually the manufacturers flagship professional devices, so they get the latest sensors with the best performance and firmware which are constantly improving; at least in terms of dynamic range. Secondly, on average they tend to have a larger pixel pitch, this is the amount of photocells per pixel on the sensor. They could do the same thing with crop sensor cameras if they made them lower resolution. However companies are ever pushing for more megapixels, if you made a 12Mp crop sensor with today’s sensor technology it would totally outperform the current 50Mp full frame offerings in terms of dynamic range and low light performance. There are some other limitations with a small sensor but this is due to the limitations of glass being able to focus light onto a smaller area without a loss in quality.
Noise is not the same when you crop, you’re doing the same thing as when you press the 100% zoom button, you are stretching the image to make the noise more visible when two shots are viewed at the same total size.
The more important thing for 'Low Light' is the SIZE of the pixels and NOT the sensor. A 12 megapixel full frame will allow much more light then a 45 megapixel full frame simply because the 12 megapixel camera has BIGGER pixels. I wish the made a 12 large megapixel camera I would trash alot of my cameras at present.
good one man!
Thank you sir!
Agree!
cmaeras are fun
If your not printing big get a crop sesnor....studio landscapes ..prints ..full frame or meduim format wins....and micro 4 3rds are great for wildlife ..street photography
@@nevvanclarke9225 yeah I also think I really should’ve mentioned that this is coming mostly from a video standpoint, but yea definitely. Even the 100mp high res mode has some issues occasionally
@@RhettThompsonFilm I really probably need to have my own RUclips channel. I've been thinking about it mate. I do like your videos. It's just time for me but yeah, you made some really good points mate and I like your channel and I've hit the subscribe button.
@@djstuc lightroom enhanced mode
It's funny....... when I was being taught photography back in the 1990's, it was all about composition and where to place your subject, and blurring the background was rarely, if ever, discussed. And you couldn't be a professional if you shot 35mm... it had to be medium format. Same debate now, just re-bagged.
Why hasn't anyone came out with superhuge sensor. Like double frame or supersize full-frame? Size matters 😂
@@ericd1084 I think someone did. Little niche camera manufacturer called …. NASA?
"If you don't shoot in low light, it does not matter". Then I am better off with my Smart phone.
@@gromit576 that’s clearly not true because songs are not dedicated video tools and like almost everything that would possibly be beneficial for a professional. That being said, they are really good for certain things and good enough for others.
To Full Frame or not Full Frame that is the question....
@@exitar1 damn that would have been a good title if I was smart
I make best low-light video/phote using 1" sensor BTW i start using samsung for street phote its doing nice and phone is more covert as big camera
It took me a few minutes to work out that you are a video centric channel. Although the same applies to the still photos. Not interested in video, as a lot of people seem to be at the moment.
I DO typically mention this but failed to do so in this video. Sparked more discussion so maybe it wasnt the worst thing. Although I still do a lot of photos!
Okay I totally understand.
Hasselblad said 🖕🖕
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 more like Hasse-BAD!
Jk plz send me one of your cameras
@@RhettThompsonFilm
Waiting for my Tesla stock to 10x, so I can upgrade from my Sony A7RV to a full suite of Hasselblad gear. I figure $75k - $100k should get me a good starter kit ... the camera and a few lenses.
I'm expecting Tesla will skyrocket in the next 24 months. Megapacks alone will be bigger than their car production, and more profitable. Robotaxis is a trillion dollar business by itself, and humanoid bots is a 10 trillion dollar market.
I should be taking fantastic pictures of carpet fibers, dust, lint, bird droppings, or whatever else I feel like when I'm retired from Tesla's wealth.
It sounds like you need a cell phone, which gives respectable dynamic range, depth of filed, image quality, and portability. The gap between dedicated cameras and cell phones is closing every year.
Seconded person to have this take. Not sure how you reaching this conclusion at all
@@RhettThompsonFilm I didn't reach to this conclusion. Your video did stating what matters and what didn't matter. Cell phone checks all those marks.
@@TheTensecondz I clearly layout why full frame DOES matter and why it doesn’t specifically. Cell phone doesn’t check any boxes and even if it does it obviously misses the mark on being a professional interchangeable lens system.
Can I get good dynamic range or low light performance or a full frame equivalent of F2.8-F5.6 of real blur on a phone ? No absolutely not
You said exactly fuck all
Oopsy! Theres a small speaker button by the play button. You must have hit that! Try hitting it again OR pressing the M button to unmute. If there is a speaker problem you can hit C to turn on subtitles as well!
@@RhettThompsonFilm😂
Wrong. In the film era, if you wanted the absolute best quality photo you shot large format with a single sheet of film using a Speed Graphic for fine arts photography. Ansel Adams shot large format landscapes. Portrait, fashion, art photography shot medium format. And "run and gun" was lowest quality 35mm small format. Henry Carter Bresson and run and gun street photographers shot "small format" sacrificing quality for quantity. Quality, then as now, can be directly mapped to the size of the imaging plane. Film or digital. Period. I don't know why RUclipsrs drag out this old chestnut. Out of content ideas, perhaps? Want the best quality? FF. Full stop. They're relatively cheap now. Get yourself a used one -- a (brilliant) Nikon D700, a Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AF-D. Good to go -- FF, for the cost of some amateur cropped sensor nonsense.
What’s your favorite movie shot on large format sheet film ?
@@RhettThompsonFilm I’ve actually tried making a movie on 5x4 . But I’m really struggling with useable frame rates 😂
clickbait content
@@AI3Dorinte I got you didn’t I.
@@RhettThompsonFilm yeah, once. Now i blocked your channel.
@@AI3Dorinte how is this clickbait by the way? I really don’t know if it matches that description. Just a short discussion on my personal thoughts. I also do highly in depth reviews and analysis of lenses cameras and other equipment and want to talk about cinematography and lighting in the future!
Anyone of you could educate me that would be great.
No one cares about you not caring about full frame.
Aw man. I was afraid of this. I wanted more but alas it has just one single view and one single comment 😞