A FF + 600mm F/4.0 has clear advantages, but for me it's too heavy and too expensive. I use OM-1 + 300mm F/4.0 and get very nice results. The lens has a very good IQ and the background gets blured enough. I can add more blur at editing if need it. The noise was never a problem since it can be removed easily by editors like DXO Lab.
@@MotoRich900 Hey mate! what ISO could be expected with this setup in like "forest area" where the light is reeealllyy absent? With my A6400 and 200-600 sony at aperture f6.3 and times of 1/500 (to don't get subject blurred - becasue of lack of body stabilization) I end up with ISO 12.800 and that's fkin sad.. And people talk about dynamic range, when in that situation I lose all of that. If I had fullframe, I'd also lost 50% of dynamic range with that ISO.. I heard you can do very low times like 1/30 or 1/60 to "still subject" with that 300 mm f4 lens, so I guess ISO could be then around ISO 3200 or even lower?
I currently own OM-1 and 300/4 and moving to R7+100-500mm Weight and quality is the most important to me. Weight about the same, but you'll get zoom and 800mm of reach. Same comes for picture quality, maybe R7 has better but not by much. Unfortunately m43 doesn't have top quality tele zooms except 150-400mm with is crazy expensive and big.
If someone is not fortunate enough to live or photograph in a place with a lot of sunlight, or if someone only needs short walks to reach desired photo locations, then KB makes perfect sense. For those who are lucky enough to always have plenty of light available or need long walks (or climbing or bike rides), crop sensors, especially M43, are the best choice. These devices are tools! One must choose the right tool for the desired task. Unnecessary weight is always and simply a bad choice. On the other hand, in certain situations additional weight is required to achieve the desired iQ, although editing software significantly reduces the need to carry additional weight. I really don't know many professional photographers who only use one system.
Yep, professional photographer makes convincing argument for professional photographer using the best possible gear for image quality, regardless of weight, cost or other considerations. That's absolutely fine. There's no world in which I can justify dropping £3000-4000 on an R5, and £11000+ on either a 400mm f2.8 or a 600mm f4, let alone both. If I did, I'd be terrified to take them out of the house. If that's the requirement to photograph wildlife, I'm not allowed to play. I *can* afford a micro4/3 camera, and to splash out on a 100-400mm lens, and a little collection of second-hand lenses that allow me to dabble with other types of photography as well. That seems absolutely fine for people taking photos primarily for their own enjoyment.
It is about money and weight. I just don't use cameras enough to justify spending big money and I don't park near a bird hide. Weight is important. So m43 suits me. I don't go out in poor light for wildlife photography. So the Olympus 300 F4 is plenty of lens for me. Only if I was making money from the photo's would I spend big money. The difference is usually only noticeable when you pixel peep the feathers and should we really need to do that. I don't believe full frame is always better. Not with the affordable lenses. The canon and Sony 200-800 and 200-600 don't blow the Olympus lens away and weigh a noticeable amount more. It's fine margins I believe unless you buy the real quality lenses.
Having used both the Canon M50 and M5, along with the Olympus EPL-10, I've found that despite the slight difference in sensor resolution (24 megapixels for Canon versus 16 megapixels for Olympus), the noise and low-light performance between them is practically indistinguishable. However, where the Olympus really shines is in its sensor stabilization feature. Even on their most affordable body, it significantly enhances low-light shooting, enabling me to capture crisp, sharp photos at lower ISO settings, often at shutter speeds as slow as 1/10. It's truly remarkable how much of a difference this stabilization makes in challenging lighting conditions.
In my experience with Canon, I've been thoroughly impressed by their top-tier gear. However, I've noticed that their entry-level and mid-level offerings sometimes feel lacking in attention to detail and features compared to their higher-end counterparts. This can leave users feeling unsatisfied, especially when they're unable to justify investing in pricier equipment. For example, I initially invested in the M series because it matched my needs for compact cameras that deliver decent photos on the go. However, I'm disappointed by Canon's decision to discontinue this line entirely. Now, there are no adapters available for Canon R APC, rendering my existing lenses virtually worthless. Additionally, the fact that M series sensors were consistently behind the competition adds to my frustration at times. So, while I hope Canon is improving their lower-tier offerings, it will take some time for me to regain trust in their products.
The Pangolin Wildlife Photography channel shows the bokeh difference between the OM1 300 F4 vs the R3 600 F4. The video is titled 'Should you switch to a Micro 4:3 Camera for wildlife?' and the comparison is at the 18:41 mark. BIG difference in my opinion!
Full frame glass for wildlife will give you better separation of the subject than 4/3 or APSC but it also gives greater separation between your wallet and your pocket and that is a problem for many photographers.
You can easily soften the background in an m43 image with image editing software. The weight and size difference between the two lenses can't be changed, and that matters when you're hauling those lenses any distance. Don't ignore the fact that the 600 will be tripod mounted, so you'll have the weight of the tripod as well. Consider that, when you're flying anywhere, and m43 is the clear winner if using long glass.
I’m a M4/3 shooter and agree with everything you’ve stated here. It’s easy to see the separation of subject from the background in full frame photos and I often get jealous. At the same time I carry both wildlife and landscape lens and I couldn’t do that if I was shooting full frame.
I am still in both camps I shoot Sony a9 full frame for those fast action and birds in flight. But I am shooting more and more with my g9 because I am beginning to shoot more video and just like the Panasonic better with video. But the g9 af just can’t even compete with the speed and accuracy of the a9. Maybe the new g9 II can close the gap a bit only time will tell if it will be good enough. But for now the A9 with the GM 70-200mm 2.8 version two is just hard to beat I also have the GM 100-400mm but depending on how well the new g9 II and lumix 100-400mm performs that may replace the GM for bird and wildlife videos
I think the light gathering statement is a glib over simplification and plainly wrong. The reason Full frame has blurred backgrounds is that the full frame doesn’t gather or concentrate the available light enough to provide any definition to most of the picture. Full Frame is less capable of giving a clear definition unless you risk very small apertures and diffraction. So, if you want a dreamy shot where part of the subject is clearly defined (in focus), and you're left to guess the location sometimes 90+% of the picture, Fullframe is for you. I think of sensor size, much like a projected image. The light from the projector passes through the lens onto the projector screen (sensor). The bigger the projector screen (sensor), the less light (lumens per sq cm) the duller the picture, and the less definition is visible (bokeh). The smaller the projector screen (sensor), the more light (lumens per sq cm) the brighter the picture, and you see more definition. There is also a popular fallacy about f stops and lenses. An f1.8 lens is an f1.8 lens irrespective of sensor size, medium format, FF, APS-C, MFT, 1", etc. People often confuse smaller sensor performance and start saying incorrectly that an MFT f1.8 lens only lets in f3.6. With all things, you look at what's available and spend your money on your preference. If you have to spend tens of thousands on a lens to achieve what another format can give you for far less, you haven’t done enough research and aren't using enough camera formats.
Why not? Photographers have been using full frame/35mm for 100 years and seemed to cope with camera and lens size. Today's full frame and APS-C cameras are quite small and light now.
Nice topic, sadly no practice comparisons with pics, but the theory I will believe. I changed last year from Nikon. D500 to complete OM-1 with a serie of Olympus Zuiko lenses. Not a single second regrets! Most uses pics are on the internet and the results are stunning from 300 mm f4 till macro 90 mm f3.5. So I am very content with this system. Main advantage is the compact and light weight of my gear. As you said choose what suits to you and then you will have the BEST combination ;-)
Fabian, thanks for the calm, unbiased comparisons. I have a number of photo friends who have switched to micro four thirds and are just fanatical in claiming its lighter while having next to no image quality downside. Every time i’ve tried a micro four thirds camera, I’ve found the dynamic range to be just unacceptably limited. So i’ve made apsc camera my smallest format i’ll consider.
Your friends are kind of right. If you crop into the 60MP picture from the FF to match the frame of the M43 camera you‘ll find that noise levels look surprisingly similar. On the whole I find the debate pretty pointless as you can achieve stunning results with any system if you know what you‘re doing
You must have extremely sensitive eyes. It's cool if you like full frame more than m43, but there is only slightly more than 1EV difference between Nikon Z7ii and OM-1 for example at base ISOs. Almost any editing software could recover at least 2 stops on either end I think. Not bashing full frame here. I am thinking of adding one to my kit too just for the experience.
@@martinhommel9967 Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Some find it unacceptable, some find it acceptable. Stunning to some people but not stunning to other people. As long as you like using your camera and think that the photos are stunning, that is the most important!
MFT is fun AND you get the shot, FF Z9 is work, and you have to work hard to get the shot YOU want. The camera takes fantastic shots, super sharp, but are they what you 'saw' and wanted.
Recently I've seen some videos which were really bashing on the MFT systems. But also, I've seen a LOT of absolutely awesome, eye bleeding sharp bird photos, taken with this system. For me, the proof is in the pudding. I currently shoot with a Canon APS-C combo for a 1280mm equivalent. But an MFT system that gets me 1200mm would be pretty nice as well. I definitely do not want a FF system for my bird photography.
I have a Canon t3i with a 73-300 mm, and recently I bought a m43 Lumix g95D with a Zuiko 75-300 mm lens. Both cameras with their lenses weight almost the same, both have almost the same size and...guess what? That myth of "with a m43 you will double the reach of a 300 mm lens, because of the x2 crop factor" is totally FALSE! I've used both cameras for birs photography and the m43 doesn't double the reach, I mean, if you have a 300 mm lens mounted in an m34, in practice, you're not gonna get 600 mm, believe me! You will have the same reach. So, do you wanna get the reach of a 600 mm using a 300 mm mounted on a m43? You are never gonna have it! The crop factor only means that you have a narrower angle of vision in a m43 or any crop sensor. So, if you have a FF camera with a 300 mm placed, idk 5 meters away from a 10 member family who want to taken a group picture, your FF with that lens is gonna capture an image with the 10 persons. If you replace the camera for a m43 (in my case) with the same distance and a 300 mm lens, due to the sensor size, you ate not gonna capture de 10 persons, you are gonna have more or les 8.5 persons in your picture. And this picture will be enlarged to the number of pixels of the sensor, this can function as a little zoom effect, but the effect is just because the image has to fill the number of pixels of your sensor. In the other hand, and this is what nobody talks about is that the sharpness of your image depends of your lens and its capability to get a sharp image. If your image isn't sharp from the beginning, forget about the crop factor and all that discussion (I'd say that bull manure lol) no matter how big your image can be, ypu are gonna have a bad quality image, a huge non focused image. So. What you have to understand is that you have to start by having your subject and the main composition ocupping at least 50% of your image. Why? Because when you are editing the picture you are gonna cut out the 50% of pixels that don't go with your final picture. Depending on what your subject is, this rule can vary, it depends on the composition, as I said. So, the clue to get sharp pictures is to be as near as possible from your subject, that will give you the best IQ. Please forget about these myths. That's the reason why it's much better to focus on getting the best lens you can achieve and in second the camera. The camera market has a lot of useful functions on their gear, choose your camera due to the kind of final result you wanna get and for the functions that are useful for you, the thing of the reach has one only solution: Get the best and big lens you can achieve and try to get closer to your subject. There's no other option.
Correct - use the system that works the best for you. I am very satisfied with my MFT - the unbelievable image stabe, and the features are great. I can take all the lenses I need, anywhere I want! The images from the Leica lenses are extremely sharp and have great contrast!
I shoot both M43 OM1 and Nikon Z8. I find uses for both. Fun factor OM1 all the way. Image quality Nikon. As the software wars heat up , I think it will be a mute point.
I chose m4/3 as I prefer a smaller system/lenses. Now they have gotten huge, negating the advantage. But, I keep my Panasonic gx9 and g100. If I decide on a larger body, will add a FF or APSc.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotographyThere's no way I'd get that lens everywhere that I'd want to take it. I once took my Panasonic 100-400mm on an overnight camp on top of Helvellyn (English Lake District, 950m above sea level, tricky scrambling to get to the top). With a 35mm camera, I'm probably limited to the long end of a wide short telephoto zoom, possibly a 70-200.
One thing I realized is that if the subject is occupying the same area of the image, a given lens e.g. 50mm f1.8 will give you the same SIZE of bokeh balls at INFINITY regardless of sensor size. What will change is the NUMBER of these balls, due to compression (different FOV). Also, the smaller the sensor, the less sudden the DOF blurring will be. So, one can argue that if your background is far enough M43 will give you portraits that keep entire subject in focus and have less distracting but equally smooth background :)
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography fair point, but already the lens achieving 100 f3.6 will be larger on full frame than 50mm f1.8 will be on mft... it ends up being so due to the smaller image circle needed... it will also be interesting to see the future of f 0.95 lenses for crop sensors, most of which are really compact
@@antraxuran9 can you give us some examples where ~equivalent lenses exist and m43 is much smaller? For example 25mm f1.4 vs 50mm 2.8. Sony has 50mm 2.5 you can take this one. Does m43 have anything smaller and lighter at 1.4?
Thanks for making this video. There are lots of discussions around this topic, and I was happily surprised that at 10:25, you made a very meaningful comparison in terms of lenses. You are absolutely right, the important element is the absolute diameter of the optics, as this is what determines the amount of light that reaches the sensor (assuming that the lens is designed for the sensor size). That diameter is the important factor that determines the amount of noise and background blur in the final images. In fact, if you take a picture on an MFT with a 300mm F4 lens, at ISO 400, at 1/500s, it will look almost exactly like a picture shot on FF with a 600mm lens at F8, at ISO 1600, at 1/500s. Same angle of view, same exposure, same noise, same background blur (that's an experiment that is very easy for anyone to do). The thing that kept me away from MFT is the very narrow selection of suitable bodies and lenses for wildlife. Also, the only 2 reasonable lenses for wildlife are very expensive for what they are. With FF, I can get an excellent Sony 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 for $2K. The closest MFT equivalent would be the Olympus M.Zuiko 300mm f/4, but that's not zoom, it's 2/3 stop slower, has comparable IQ, and is $1K more expensive than the Sony. The OM SYSTEM 150-400mm f/4.5 is still 1/3 stop slower - agreed it has a bit more reach and comes with integrated 1.25 TC - but it costs $7.5K and IQ isn't exceptionally good (to say it tactfully).
Oly lenses changed significantly when they went to MFT mirrorless. The original 4/3 DSLR system had some truly superb glass - glass that was not built with anything in mind except for quality, and wow, it was expensive: the 300mm f/2.8, weighing in at something like 3.4kg, was $8k on release in 2003. This was what Oly called its Super High Quality (SHQ) range, with the other lenses being the 90-250mm f/2.8; the 150mm f/2; the 35-100mm f/2; the 14-35mm f/2; and the 7-14mm f/4. All the glass was fast, tough and optically excellent. I think that by 2010, Oly had realized that the development potential of the 4/3 sensor was limited when compared to the paths that other manufacturers had chosen - APSC and FF. They needed something that would create viability for the system (they were in deep with no way out) and going small and light - selling those photographically peripheral 'advantages' - was the best course open to them (after-all, the idea had pedigree - the original OM-1 was a seminal camera). Effectively, they created a 'Cult' around a set of 'virtues' that most people had never really given much thought to, all the while managing not to talk about the downsides, and said 'Cult' persists to this day. Now, i'm actually not disparaging Oly in any general way here - just telling a little of it from the perspective of someone who first got an OM-1N in the 1970s, and continues (though not exclusively) to shoot Oly every day. Cheers.
Nailed it! M43 is like a religion you aren’t allowed to question. I’m glad people are happy with it and enjoy their photography, I enjoy mine as a general purpose everyday shooter, but there’s no comparison to full frame when you want to recover deep shadows or shoot moving subjects in low light.
This is the truth. They will defending their patch (quite possibly regretting it) until their dying day. As an owner of several Om1 film cameras, and a Sony A6400 I can't believe Om did not opt for APS-C. After all, the sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame.
E' molto semplice; già con la Olympus E-1 di soli 5mp, chi faceva i matrimoni e stampava nel formato 30x40cm (amo la proporzione 4/3) si era reso conto che la qualità era davvero ottima, le foto anche a 800 iso non erano poi così rumorose e si potevano usare anche diaframmi f:2,8 o poco più chiusi, per raccontare l'evento. Questo dava la possibilità di non dover alzare la sensibilità con minore luce ambiente rispetto ad un corredo full-frame a cui si era abituati. Ora, se nel 2003 un sensore 1/4 del full-frame regalava questa qualità con pochi megapixel, nel consorzio 4/3 sapevano che si poteva solo migliorare, nel tempo. 😉 La realtà è che quando si stampano le foto, tanti problemi esistenziali spariscono. Le tante coppie di sposi che ho fotografato erano felicissimi dei colori, nitidezza, tridimensiionalità che il piccolo sensore Kodak riusciva a regalare. Aggiungo, che in futuro saranno i sensori da 1 pollice ad avere maggiore convenienza nella maggioranza dei generi fotografici. E lo sfuocato? Ci saranno software in grado di dare questa possibilità come oggi esiste nel migliorare il rumore. Infine, (opinione personale) cosa davvero cambia tra un uccello con uno sfondo molto sfuocato ripreso in Africa invece che in Italia (è solo un esempio) per un osservatore? Nulla. E quale divertimento sarebbe dover fare foto seriali tutte simili negli anni? Mistero. 🤔
I think your point made around 10:00 is valid. The problem is not one of sensor format as much as one of what is offered. I personally love the f4 pro lenses made by OM System, like the 12-45 and the 40-150 because they are so compact yet offer stellar image quality if there's enough light. I would love to see pro grade f8 full frame lenses in a similar format but it seems that we won't get that anytime soon. With primes, the FF juggernauts have seemed to explore this direction (great image quality & compact form factor at the sacrifice of maximum aperture) a bit, I absolutely applaud Sony for making lenses like the 40mm F 2.5 G. I hope it'll be successful.
No one would buy an f/8 lens in the full frame world. Don't forget that a 200mm f/8 FF lens is much worse than a 100mm f/4 MFT lens! They have two things in common - field of view, and depth of field. Yet the FF lens only gets 25% of the light!
Great video Fabian. I prefer full frame in most cases, but of course the mft can be very good, specially for shore birds where often the background can be further away, and maybe birds in flight sometimes too. Keep up your great work, both with this videos and with your work as a biolog. Greetings from an Norwegian living in South Brazil
Fabian, you are right. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Some find the photos unacceptable, some find it acceptable. Stunning photos to some people but not stunning to others. As long as you like using your camera and think that your photos are stunning, that is the most important! The worst thing to happen is when you don't use the camera and spend lots of time criticising others because of sensor size!!!
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Haha yes. I don't mind carrying heavier equipment as long as I enjoy the process of taking photos. Some like carrying lighter cameras and lens and think their photo comes out great according to their own eyes, so be it. No right or wrong...
I don't get it why light gathering ability is depending on the sensor size. When using the same f-stop on FF, APS-C, or MFT sensors the light gathering ability and as a consequence the picture quality depends on the pixel size and the manufacturer's ability to control noise vs. ISO, not on the number of overall pixels and sensor size. Given the same pixel size and noise control the picture quality will look the same on any sensor, but of course the amount of crop will be different. Your elaboration focusses primarily on the differences of background blur due to the fact that you do have to have different distances from your subject while using different sensor sizes to achieve the same look, not on overall picture quality. Hence, a e.g. 3.7 micron MFT sensor should deliver the same quality as a FF sensor with far more pixels but the same pixel size. Of course, I am open for differing opinions, since this just my personal understanding of the matter :)
@noPrinting If life would be so simple ;) Take a look at the following examples of sensors: - Sony IMX455, FF, 3,76 micron pixels (e.g. in Sony A7R V) - Sony IMX571, APS-C, 3,76 micron pixels - Canon EOS 650D, APS-C, 4.30 micron pixels - OM System OM-1, MFT, 3.36 micron pixels So, the relations between sensor size and pixel size is not that clear, especially when it comes to comparing older sensors with often larger pixels with modern ones. But admittetely, as a rule of thump your assumption will mostly work when only looking at one generation of sensors. That does not render the original statement true in all cases, however. Additionally, as already states above, some modern sensors with smaller pixels have better noise control than older sensors with larger pixels. So this is taken into account as well.
The exposure is the same for all sensor sizes, as this is a measure independent of the sensor size. But due to the bigger sensors, FF collects overall more light and provides better image quality. It’s not so much about pixel size as about sensor size btw. I hope this helps to clarify 😊
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Thanks for the explanation. However, I dare to disagree. That would imply that a picture shot with an FF sensor - cropped to APS-C size - would be superior to a picture shot with ASP-C given the same pixel size and quality. But this is not the case, since on pixel level they are all the same. FF gathers more light in total, that is correct. But the light is distributed over a larger area which leads to a draw. Look at Canon EOS R6 and EOS R5. They have the same sensor size, but R6 has bigger pixels and thus better low light capabilities and noise control. Apart from that, I forgot to mention that I really enjoy your videos since they are very much focussed on real world experience rather than lab results. I did not want to shift the focus away from this more important aspect by opening a tech discussion.
Maybe there is a misunderstanding. If you crop a full frame image to aps-c then you loose the „full frame advantage“. But if you don’t need to crop because you can get physically closer (or use a different lens with 1.6x more focal length but the same aperture), then you have a big advantage with the full frame camera 😊 The R6 is ever so slightly better than the R5 in High ISO, but IIRC this was only the case from something like 6400 ISO on. I think it’s important not to compare noise at pixel level but at a certain print size.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Agreed, there are some characteristics that are in favour for FF, like a more shallow depth of field due to being closer to the subject. On the other hand I use my APS-C camera for macros, since in this case I do want more depth of field. Additionally, I use high pixel density cameras to have more "reach" for birding, but have to deal with more noise due this high pixel density. Hence, it is not about an objective quality but more about personal preference and which sensor is better suited for a task. I think that is the bottom line for me. Regarding pixel noise: This is an important topic for me, since I do a lot of deep sky astrophotography and pixel noise is one of if not the most important factor in this discipline in my opinion. Maybe this hobby spoils my perspective on daylight photography a bit ;)
I use all these systems. FF when I am able to carry it. Or when I don't have to carry. But all other times I choose m43. M34 for travel, hiking or R7 + 800mm f11 for running after small birds
My R7 and RF100-400mm combo gives me 640mm field of view with 33mp and it weighs 1475 grams. With the rf800mm on my R7 or R8 I'm also getting tons of reach in a very lightweight package with a crop sensor and a full frame camera and it's also very affordable. It's good that we have this many options! Micro four-thirds doesn't have all of the small and light and affordable combinations.
I am delighted to see APSC included in your comparison. Too often, full frame and MFT are treated as the only options, even though APSC is a natural "intermediate" comparison for both. Nicely done.
Great commentary. I use all 3 systems MFT (& FT), APS-C (& APS-H) & FF for a wide spectrum of situations and generally with older gear. What do I prefer? It's a bit like asking what is your favourite child. I can get closer to an honest answer if asked what is your favourite for urban, landscape, portraits, macro, wildlife, general walk around, etc. I could give an answer for each category. But if I was a professional wildlife photographer - like you - I would make the same decisions you did, and for your reasons. But, I am an amateur who loves photography in all of its variant moods and possibilities.
I own the OM-1 and Nikon Z7II. I mainly doing street photography and sometimes portrait. I find the M43 just have the right amount of bokeh with a 25mm F1.4 lens especially shooting at night! 50mm F1.8 bokeh is sometimes a bit too shallow on the Nikon. True that the image quality on the OM-1 may not be as good. Then again, I only print up to A3+ size and the OM-1 is plenty enough and it takes my heart for daily use.💁♂ Both have their merits~
Between AI Noise reduction and PS/LR Lens Blur, the full frame "advantages" are quickly going away... whereas the size, weight and price make M4/3 pretty much a clear winner if you travel, walk a long way, and want weather sealed for lets say real telephoto (Camera, 600mm f/4 lens, or roughly 200-800 f/4.5 equivalent). There is no contest having used both Full Frame and M4/3. I love the fact that full frame has higher resolution. I truly miss that capability. I happily trade that for the size, weight, price advantage. The other issue I have with comparisons between M4/3 and Full Frame is the perception that F/4 on MFT = F/8 on Full Frame. Frankly, that is BS. If I shoot in the same conditions a MFT and Full Frame camera, I use the same exposure values to get equivalent exposures. Same ISO, F-stop, shutter speed yield a well exposed image on MFT and Full Frame. Only difference is depth of field. So now let's compare: Olympus 300mm f/4 vs Sony f/4: $2,999 vs $12,998; 8.9 inches tall vs 17.7"; 3.3 lbs vs 6.7 lbs. M4/3 is 25% of the price, half the size and half the weight. I know which I would rather pay for and carry with me. And if I need to use a little post processing to increase background blur, I'm happy to spend the time. Will the Full Frame end up with slightly better image quality.. probably. Would I notice most of the time without pixel peeping... I doubt it.
F4 on 43 collects as much light as f8 on FF, and has "same size bokeh". Those are facts, no bs. There is generally no size advantage. Just look at Sony 24, 40 and 50mm or Sigma small primes, or some samyang primes, or even zooms like Tamron 17-28, 28-75, 70-180, zeiss 35mm 2.8, new sony kit lens, etc etc. For example Panasonic 10-25mm 1.7, which is 20-50mm 3.4 equivalent, weights 690g, has 77mm filter thread, while Tamron 20-40mm 2.8 only weights 365g and has 67mm filter thread, and is also physically shorter.. and also half the price... while Sony 20-70 f4 (only 1/3 stop slower) is 488g, 72mm filter, shorter, also alot cheaper.. Lets look at Olympus 17mm 1.2, aka 34mm 2.4 equivalent... compare that to Zeiss 35mm 2.8... Oly is again exactly twice the cost, weights 390g vs Zeiss at 120g!! Lol. panasonic 12mm 1.4, 335g Sony 24 2.8, 162g, again much cheaper. Olympus 45mm 1.2, 410g Signa 90mm 2.8, 295g, 30% cheaper. Sony 85mm 1.8, 371g, also 30% cheaper. samyang 75mm 1.8, 230g, 1/3 the price Last one: Olympus 25mm 1.2 410g Sony 50mm 2.5 174g, again 30% cheaper. Where is the size advantage?
When it comes to telephoto, it is a bit difrent i am sure.. but i am not sure if anyone is making slow primes for FF, except Canon 600 and 800 or 900mm
Canon 600mm f11, 930g Olympus 300mm f4, 1475g Olympus is physically smaller, faster for one whole stop, so not fair at all.. and i do believe m43 should generally have advantage here.. but maybe not as much as i thought.
Very nice and educative material! I agree with everything that you said, apart from the numbers quoted on ISO sensitivity (around 3:10 and after) - the thing is that the base ISO is very different depending on the sensor size (and manufacturer). If you put your m4/3 camera at 25 mm and f/2 and compare it to a full frame at 50mm f/4 you will find that you get much lower ISO with m4/3 due to the fact that the base ISO is different. It doesn't change anything, however, because when you look at the noise, you will find that it's almost exactly the same in both pictures. So all I want to say is that the ISO is not directly comparable across different sensors and it might be very confusing to do so. Otherwise - a really great material!
Thanks! Yes, I‘m aware of the difference. But it’s actually not only true at the base ISO, but at all ISO settings. For example, ISO 800 on MFT will look similar in noise than ISO 3200 on Fullframe
Definitely. APS-C is the sweet spot. Camera likes the Sony E6400 but just a small as Olympus range and technically better. The lenses might be slightly large but I don't know why we're obsessed with tiny cameras. Shallower DOF, better low light, still small form, prices not more than most micro 4/3 systems.
For detail with distant subjects like the Moon and birds, aps-c is fine and even micro 4/3, but for best flexibility a full-frame camera is the best all-rounder. Especially one with a sensor unburdened by an anti-alias filter. A few go even further with 100Mp medium format sensor digital like fuji's.
For birds I prefer FF because pf the shallower depth of field. Medium format would be very heavy though (there are actually no suitable lenses for wildlife )
I suppose nobody uses a very long lens for landscape shots. There used to be a pentax manual 800mm f6.7 medium format lens.@@FabianFoppNaturephotography
This video has a lot of mistakes! Full frame does not collect more light than APS-C or M43. That is just wrong! Full Frame can collect more light per pixel but only if we do not talk about FF sensors with very high megapixel counts. The difference in quality comes from the noise that is generated as the pixels in crop sensors have to be much smaller to reach the same Megapixel count. F2 is also F2 on micro four thirds. A F4 lens on M43 collects as much light for the sensor as a F4 on Full Frame! The crop factor does not apply to light gathering! The only thing is that M43 has double the depth of field (less Bokeh / Toneh). Summary: You just have less sensor area for each pixel. A 60Megapixel FUll Frame will have similar pixel density than a 24 Megapixel APS-C and therefore will not necessarily work much better in low light in terms of "noise". ChatGPT can help us here: Full Frame sensors typically have dimensions around 36mm x 24mm. APS-C sensors vary slightly depending on the manufacturer, but a common size is around 22.3mm x 14.9mm. Micro Four Thirds sensors have dimensions around 17.3mm x 13mm. Let's calculate: Camera 1 (Full Frame, 24 Megapixel): Sensor area = 36mm * 24mm = 864mm² Pixel per surface area = 24 MP / 864 mm² ≈ 0.0278 MP/mm² Camera 2 (Full Frame, 45 Megapixel): Sensor area = 36mm * 24mm = 864mm² Pixel per surface area = 45 MP / 864 mm² ≈ 0.0521 MP/mm² Camera 3 (APS-C Nikon, 24 Megapixel): Sensor area = 22.3mm * 14.9mm ≈ 332.27mm² Pixel per surface area = 24 MP / 332.27 mm² ≈ 0.0722 MP/mm² Camera 4 (Micro Four Thirds, 20 Megapixel): Sensor area = 17.3mm * 13mm ≈ 225.5mm² Pixel per surface area = 20 MP / 225.5 mm² ≈ 0.0887 MP/mm² Camera 5 (Full Frame, 60 Megapixel): Sensor area = 36mm * 24mm = 864mm² Pixel per surface area = 60 MP / 864 mm² ≈ 0.0694 MP/mm² For low light it still makes sense to carry full frame but not for the same reasons as described in the video.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography this is confusing. If what you say is true Fabian, then a m43 camera with same lens as that on a FF camera - and settings at exactly the same aperture, shutter speed, ISO - would then appear darker on the m43 because the FF camera "collects more light". Is that actually true?
Nice one Fabian, full frame myself but just bought an APS-C camera for travel and difficult to get places. Definitely "Horses for courses" as we say here in the UK 👌
An interesting side note to this discussion is the weather sealing on the OM-1. It is best in class with an IP53 rating. Very useful as in UK it is constantly raining.
Money matters a lot on these decisions. It’s just too difficult to say that one would be objectively better. Some type of image is easier to make with a 300mm cropped x2, and some you can make easier with 600mm on full frame. I feel however it is better to start with a crop sensor because getting the reach, multiple lenses, and video stabilization, is easier and cheaper. Then that gives an understanding of what features one really uses, and how much would it cost to get them in full frame.
Yes, I totally agree! But if you know that you might go full frame at a later point, I think APS-C makes more sense then MFT (since you can keep the lenses)
What speaks for MFT is, when you are making photos or videos in report situations. Then you need a wide angle for overview and a tele for close ups. Or natur, wide for landscape and tele for animals. But you have no time to change the lens. So on my MFT I have a 12-200 (24 to 400 in 35mm) and this lens is on my cam the whole time. This is why you see professional photgraphers carrying three camera bodies with different lenses around, because on Fullframe you will not get a good zoom lens which full fills the needs of a report photographer or filmer.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I'll have to try it sometime since the DOF calculators don't take into account cropping a full frame photo to match the framing.
It seems to me to be a very sincere and very fair approach on your part. Leaving aside this somewhat embarrassing issue of those who buy equipment to tell others that they have the best and are smarter, the M43 and especially OM System are obsessed with positioning their product for wildlife photos and I think that is just the weak point of the system. Sensors with low resolution and problems managing high ISOs make the M43 an option that has its big problem. Added to the fact that in many cases the price is very high and the weight and volume is similar to that of larger formats. M43 only makes sense in nature when weight and volume is the priority and this is possible only with some lenses that meet the requirement of being bright and compact.
Hello, I shot full frame Sony Nikon canon However I have stumbled across a lot of videos talking about the om1 with the 150-400 f4.5 TC a lot of them are very convincing, especially with birds in flight, so mush so that even though I have all The full frame cameras that I already use and own. I have the om1 with several lens in my cart, But now after listening to you I am not sure I can pull the 15,000 trigger in my cart. I would love to see you do a side by side if possible, I am a new subscriber and really enjoy your channel, your fan from Georgia us thanks for your time.
I totally agree with you. I prefer FF , it’s more flexible system if you have 45 megapixel body - you can go to crop mode and have 20 megapixel and also you have FF. MFT is too limited. Lightweight combos also available in FF for example if you need lightweight lens in 600 mm range go with 600 mm pf . 300 mm f 4 mft lens is like 600 mm f 8 in FF. Pf lens will give you 2/3 stop advantage in background blur and ISO .Many people don’t want to say that when you multiplying crop factor you should multiply not only focal number but also f number.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography also there is alternative 400 mm f4,5 - in crop mode you can get 600 mm or to use 1.4 teleconverter . But you said about it.
I think you got it wrong with the equivalent ISO. The ISO is proportional to the crop factor squared and not the crop factor. So ISO 3200 on APS-C is equivalent to 8200, and on micro four thirds it's equivalent to 12800.
For now (as a beginner) I shoot canon APS-C, but I find that full frame might be the best option for me. Sure, a lot of those lenses might be huge compared to MFT's tiny ones, but camera brands (especially nikon) are bringing out reasonably lightweight lenses which still have a good aperature, such as the Nikkor Z 400mm f4.5.
Perhaps one might say that there is an absolute advantage for full frame, when one deals with shy or dangerous wildlife, which allows you further distance to get the same image. Otherwise you can get the same result just by moving closer! My photography basically deals with man-made landscapes/cityscapes and details of buildings or perspectives. I don’t have that issue and therefore don’t have to lug around bags of lenses that need to be checked into baggage because of weight, or might even require a Sherpa to help, Right? One thing so far into the video (7:00) that hasn’t been mentioned is the vast difference in cost of lenses for full frame, without commensurate, picture quality, (per the above comment) So unless money doesn’t matter… and then, if money matters, there is the heavy commitment one makes to a system could be nearly impossible to back out of! Many a Pro photographer RUclipsr have converted to MFT from FF, but only the professionals could take a deduction on the loss, so it would be important to let all of the amateurs know that full frame is really not meant for them!
thanks for your comment. I‘m not sure why you say that full frame has an advantage for shy wildlife. Usually that’s a reason why people choose MFT. Also, I don’t think FF can not be used by amateurs. I know many non-professional photographers that happily use full frame because they prefer the image quality or image look
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Well according to most pundits of camera standards, a FF camera allows more light to reach the CCD by virtue of size. So to get the same picture, a MFT camera would have to get closer, potentially scaring off the shy or dangerous ones!! I did not say that FF CANNOT be used by amateurs. I stated that because of FF's disadvantages of size/weight and cost, the MFT's tend to be favored by those who cannot take a deduction from their taxes as a result of purchasing expensive FF format equipment. As long as he/she has a strong back, this gives a cost advantage to the professional!!! As for "image quality or look", beyond the theoretical or nefarious feelings often stated, I have yet to see a clear cut advantage, which could only manifest itself in large format printed photography with one standing in front of two images to compare differences, only discernible in museum settings, all but eclipsed in our digital world. In any case, Olympus/OM has overridden this disadvantage with their "instant multiple overlap shot" feature- I forget the official term- that more than make up for the smaller CCD. I was not ruling anything out, merely suggesting where things were going as a result of all this bickering over the two formats. But from my vantage point, my observation is that the FF camp would not be so hot under the collar to address MFT's disadvantages, were they not feeling the heat from OM (and others), a company that hails from a culture where miniaturization is clearly an obsession that they accomplish without competition. As the smallest 35mm SLR, they were in this game with the original OM-1 which was a development from the endoscopic technology OM had already developed better than any other competition. If MFT had nothing to offer better, the FF camp would have ignored them. Its entertaining to watch the unending struggle on-line and hear the same pros and cons repeatedly. For me, the balance is clearly in favor of one of them and now they have developed a crazy lens that can shoot hand-held astrophotography because they paid attention to the factors that matter, that their older versions could not address. Thanks for the discussion.
I recently bought an Olympus Pen F and went on holidays to Japan with 3 very small lenses (among these, the very small 20mm f1.7 pancake). What a joy to gravel so light ! Way lighter than my Nikon d7200 and Sigma 18-35 f1.8. And the photos I took really are very nice imho. Also, I'm experimenting with vintage lenses on the Pen F like some Helios lenses, or a Super Takumar, and I think these are great combos. But if I want to make some more qualitative work, of course, the D7200 has a way better sensor, more dynamics and the Sigma 18-35 is a fantastic lens to go with. Every system has its advantages.
I shoot a OM-1 mk2. I don't have a problem with the mathematical comparison you're laying out here. Its all true. But, I'm a hiker. I want to do a 10 mile hike and bring my camera. It's just not practical to shoot full frame in this scenario. While you may be sacrificing certain things with micro 4/3, it more than makes up for it with the size and weight. I shoot 20x more photos with my micro 4/3 setup than I did with my full frame. I'll sacrifice a little background blur to not have to lug a giant setup up a mountain.
one of the biggest issues I see is that people compare sensor sizes versus comparing the whole systems. This faulty approach is not exclusive to this one decision matrix, but here it is greatly relevant. At the end of the day the m43 shooters are often delusional as hell (that is the system that I use nowadays) in their efforts to justify their choices, then at the same time the arguments about lager sensor delivering less noise, less dof etc - is of course true, but speak only about part of the equation, not about the usability and result of whole system . There's like a 100 reasons why one may individually prefer this or that system so boiling it all down to "it is more noisy and has more background in focus" is the most elementary and super noninformative way of dealing with the topic.
I shoot micro 4/3, APS-C. and full-frame. I also shoot compact digital cameras with a sensor size that is smaller than micro 4/3. My favorites are the APS-C dSLR and mirrorless digital cameras.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I would say you will get what you believe is the best. In case of Olympus I get 0.24x max magnification vs 0.17x on Canon (1.4m vs 2.5m minimum focusing distance), dualIS which is uncomparable with Canon, splashproof resistance, 1270g vs 2890g. And now even 1.4x teleconverter included. And on the 10m distance I get 0.13m DoF vs 0.06m on the Canon where you will most probably need to stop down a little. And yes, saved 11k I can use to go through the safari few times ...
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography you see, indeed, local camera store has wrong data, nevertheless real data from canon website are even worse :D personal preference
Nice video but I don't really agree with the combo chosen for Micro four thirds. Why the olympus 40-150 f2.8 when there is the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8? It's about 400 grams lighter and a few hundred dollars cheaper at least. The weight savings would push the setup to under 1,000 grams.
In my opinion what FF stands out is not IQ as there're medium format MILCs on the market, but the versatility--you have better IQ than crop sensors, larger native lens selection than medium format, you have very fast sensors and slower but higher resolution sensors, it can fit in most use cases. But for people who have more extreme needs, that's where other formats for.
I like apsc for wildlife. I don’t have the money for a 600mm f4. So I use a 200-600 5.6-6.3. Either way I’m going to need good light with the lens, so apsc gives me more pros than cons for what I do. Which is get extremely close and detailed shots of birds.
@ I don‘t think a A7C is smaller or lighter than a GM5 or even as a GX9. And Not much can beat the Lumix 42.5mm f 1.7 or the 35-100mm f4-5.6. Ok, the A7C and the GX9 are almost same size and weight…just looked it up.
I used a canon 7d for a long time with a Sigma 150-600mm contemporary, I liked this combo for the reach, and the backgrounds are not to bad. When I considered upgrading, there were two main choices the R5, which has about the same pixel density, or the R7 for more pixels on the subject. I ended up with the R7, mainly because the R5 cost about as much as an R7 and a 100-500mm, so I almost have enough money to also get a new lens. But I'm waiting a year or two to see, if Canon will put out a lens that's more like my current one, or allow third parties to do so.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Ha! They may someday release a 200-600 5.6-6.3, but "affordable"? (I enter into evidence the 100-500 4.5-7.1 for a little under three grand!) I wouldn't hold my breath! Best bet is they allow Sigma to make an RF 150-600!
There's a rumor about a 100-600mm rf lens, but the aperture would be like f/9, which is twice as dark as the sigma 150-600mm, I wouldn't really switch for that. I would like something affordable, but not f/9 kind of affordable.
Sigma is at the moment not allowed to make a RF150-600 😉 of course, nobody can sure what Canon will bring. But please stop comparing the RF100-500 to a Sigma 150-600 or Nikon 180-600. it’s a completely different tier of lens. It needs to be compared with the Nikon 100-400, which is actually more expensive than the Canon 100-500
I have the OM-1, Nikon Z8 and Canon R3 and if you asked me to choose only one I would have to toss a coin for either the nikon or canon but I think I would choose Nikon as Canon needs to release lenses that are affordable like nikon, but please note the OM-1 has features that full frame costing double the price can't touch and the OM-1 pro capture is the best there is, Nikon only 11mp jpeg only lol and the R3 isn't any better, Plus the OM-1 computational features are first class and all in RAW, But I can't keep 3 systems and actually I am waiting for canon R5 II to see what that will be like then I will make a decision on which system to keep.
I use the very small m43 lenses. The 14-140 Panasonic is my do it all lens. A couple of oly pro's for the image quality and also the Olympus 300 F4 with 2x TC. I know there's equivalence and all that but when I look at other people's photos and look at the price and weight of other camera's and their lenses I just can't find a compelling reason to switch.
I don't think FF shooters are idiots. I have shot both formats and enjoyed both (Canon, Panasonic/Leica and more recently Olympus). Full frame is clearly more capable. If had the money and body (I'm 72 years old), I'd still be a FF shooter - Canon.Nikon or Sony are clearly more capable in terms of resolution, noise, dynamic range, bokeh and a certain IQ that (as a long time MFT shooter) is a hard to quantify - the Jis (just is?) that twitchers recognize. But, I continue to shoot MFT (Olympus OM1, 300 F4, 40-150 2.8 and 150-600). The reason is weight and value. Most hobbyists (especially wildlife shooters) just don't ahve the pockets that you do - nor the energy. Great channel, I continue to follow you, despite my $$ constraints!! Oh, and IS on Olympus is terrific - significantly better than my Canon 6D. Glass is also excellent and cheaper.
I am using OM-1 with Olympus 300 pro. It’s a great combo, especially for birding I think. I would love to have the 150-400, but it’s too expensive. One important thing to bear in mind is that OM-1 has a stacked sensor, which is a big advantage. I often combine hiking with birding, and this combination doesn’t weigh me down too much. From a quality perspective I am happy, and with Lightroom it is possible to reduce any noise to get good results. If I were to change, I would look into Nikon and then especially the Z8 with the 180-600 telephoto. This combo would be heavier though.
Are those numbers true? Does 3200 iso on m4/3 look as god/bad as 12800 iso on a FF? It’s a smaller sensor and need less light to get the same results!? 🤔
Even a FF+150-600mm zoom could probably produce better results than a m43+300mm F4, that's quite clear, and would not be much more expensive, if not cheaper. But I want something compact that can fit into my bag and not need a backpack, and I need more reach than a apsc+70-200mm, so for now m43 is the system to go, for me. R7+RF 100-400mm is also compact but the aperture is too small for that pixel density. Or maybe someday Sony releases a 100MP FF body than I could think of switch to that plus a 100-400mm GM lens, but I also doubt the burst speed of a 100MP camera.
I think for the moment there is definitely a speed/resolution trade-off. But I think we will see faster speeds and higher resolutions in the next years (even though I‘m really fine with 45MP, there is already a lot of options to crop)
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I agree that 45MP is really fine , for me the thing is that if I want same magnification as 100-400mm with a 20MP m43 sensor, I need maybe a 150-600mm with a 45MP FF sensor, and that wouldn't fit into my bag. I think it's because I'm a more casual photographer, it's more like I'm taking photos while going outside and don't want too much weight and bulk and am willing to sacrifice some image quality, but for a professional like you the situation is vastly different.
hi Fabian I think that the man/woman behind the camera makes the difference, not the censor or the brand. Let's stop with nonsense material discussions and go outside and take photos.👍❤️
It's been a year, but let me remind everyone that the paramount question here is *_where_* the photos will end up eventually. If less than a couple thousand people will see them, if they are not printed in a book or magazine, or enlarged and framed on the gallery wall for an exhibition, what's the use of all the FF perfectionism? When MFT already surpasses the boundaries of 24×36mm analogue era film by far. Think just what masterpieces have been taken in that format. Also, being less capable but more portable, MFT is a real challenge to learn, to do your best and practice hard to surpass the limitations of the format.
And always much more money for same level of background separation. And in most cases you simply can't get the shots because the necessary lens doesn't exist.
Great video! I have been using Nikon for decades, bu a couple of years ago I decided to shift to Olympus. I really like Olympus, but I cannot let go of Nikon, I love both the old DSLRs and the Z6. I have the Olympus OM-1, but grab a Nikon more and more. Just ordered the 180-600 Nikkor Z lens. I think I will have to keep two systems, then my mood will decide what camera I go with on the day.
I think the advantages of different formats should be rationally utilized, so I use standard lenses for FF because they are more beneficial in low-light environments and are not too heavy. If I am traveling or hiking, or need different focal lengths at the same time, I will pick up the M4/3.
APS-C + Speedbooster + 50mm F/1.8 lens is equivalent to like F/1.2-F/1.3 56.8mm full frame (canon) and it will perform equivalent if not better a very expensive full frame body like the R5 with the same lens in low light due to F/1.2 being so much brighter than F/1.8 and so much cheaper. MFT will have it's advantages in nice daylighth situations for wildlife due to more reach. However I find the APS-C sensor size the best all rounder in both daylight and night time with a speedbooster. It's a much cheaper setup. I have a metabones 0.71 booster and with all my lenses (Sigma 150-600 C / Canon 70-300 F/4-5.6 IS 2 Nano USM / Canon EF 50mm F/1.8) they're all sharp at wide open and there's not much chromatic abberation or distortion and autofocus speed. I find no difference what so ever with the speedbooster attached or not. So I prefer APS-C for the best price/performance. And If I some day get crazy enough for night time photography, I'd probably get a medium format camera rather than a full frame. And if I get crazy enough for more reach, I'd crop the image instead of getting a MFT. So there are little to no advantages over an MFT body in my opinion other than being cheaper and a bit lighter. But I'm super happy with my R7 so I'll probably not get a medium format or full frame body anytime soon and never a MFT body.
In the comparison the MFT 40-150mm f2.8 alllows a faster shutter speed which in the case of APSC or FF the ISO may have to be raised, resulting in less PQ. I know the Mft DOF is actually equi to the FF f5.6 at 300mm, the background blur is therefore less attractive. If one doesn't mind the higher f number (or even higher iso) and lesser PQ, he can use the Olympus 40-150mm f4-5.6. That has a ff reach of 300mm and weighs only 190g. A good second hand one can be found for around USD100 . For someone who is budget constrained but wanta to get started, there are lots of good alternatives. Smaller formats means less glass and so less heavy and less expensive, unfortunately that means less PQ too
In terms of depth of field: no difference. I terms of image quality: it depends 😉 But I‘m not sure why this would be so relevant. If I need 400mm focal length I‘m not using a 200mm and cropping after
Worth pointing out that crop factor doesn't carry over to light capture. You can't just say a 300 f4 is the same as a 600 f8. It is in FoV/reach and DOF (due to being optically a 300), but in terms of light hitting the sensor it's still f4, so it'd be a 600mm f4 in that aspect. The inarguable better image quality you get with FF starts to decrease when you have to crank up the ISO to compensate for the difference in light coverage on the sensor/slower glass. Would it take you down to the OM-1? That depends, but it's possible. Does it matter with modern processing? Not really, but it wouldn't really matter anyway if you're using images for print or web galleries. One where you'd be far enough from the image, and the other where the image most likely would be compressed to the point of it being a non-factor. Realistically the only reason it's getting easier to tell people looking into photography as a hobby that might include wildlife to maybe look at FF first is because you can pick up something like the A7Riv for sub 2k USD now that has enough resolution to basically be a high spec crop body with room to spare for a person to save money getting a zoom that tops out at 400 or 500 (to get more than the 600-750mm by the time you get to the ~20mp worth of resolution that the budget MFT route of a solid used G9 and Lumix 100-300mm ii for around 1000 USD) instead of paying the huge amount for the next bump in range. All while also being, well, an A7RIV when not in that niche situation. For whatever the application, it really just comes down to what works best for the photographer. In my work where I travel around rural areas and small villages mostly in East/Southeast Asia looking for natural lifestyle portraits, my strongest tool is probably the Olympus 75mm f1.8 on my E-M5.iii. That combo lets me get an intimate shot with the 150mm field of view, while being small enough to not be a distraction. I have another body with a 20mm f1.4 to get wider (well, 40mm equiv is wide for me with how far back I'll be in a lot of situations, even with the 45mm f1.8 or f1.2 at 90mm equiv) shots I might otherwise miss (although my work/travel partner usually focuses more on the environmental portraits and wide shots). I've been asked to test a Z8 and 135mm Plena. That lasted maybe 30 minutes before I gave up because everyone around was staring at the foreigner with the big camera/lens. Not that it's impossible, I use my A9 together with compact Sigma primes to get some great shots without being a distraction. I've thought about just replacing my main bodies with the A7RIV/A9 combo (A9 serves me well, not paying to replace it) that gives me enough resolution to basically sit in APS-C crop range to get the range I want/need in the compact package of something like the Sigma 90mm f2.8 or similar and the Sigma 35mm f2 on the A9.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Since the crop sensor is smaller, it does indeed get less light even when using the same aperture. This is why MFT is about two stops worse in low light performance than full frame
Nice unbiased vid. I'm interested in how they stack up when you stop up on MF3 or APSC comparing to FF. For instance compare FF with 24mm F4 lens with APSC with 16mm 1.4 lens. Think just like you can compensate FF by using 600mm instead of 300mm, you should be able to compensate APSC by using f1.8 instead of f4 or something like that to let more light in comparatively and increase the bokah effect.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography How about comparing FF with 24mm F4 vs APSC with 16mm F1.6? Shouldn't that be a fair comparison that exists at most zoom levels?
For a correction. There is no such format as m4/3 aka MFT. That is the mount, aka "system". The format name is "Four Thirds" aka 4/3 aka 4/3". And it has been so since the first 4/3 system camera, Olympus E-1 from 2003. The sensor has always been same size, aka format is always been same. But the mount changed from 4/3 to m4/3. That was smaller in diameter and added two new digital pins for data. It is smaller version of the 4/3 mount, that is as well just a smaller version of the legendary OM mount.
I'm glad you did this comparison because I too came to realize that the arguments about cheaper on m43, particularly for wildlife, is not really the case. I rather pay for real focal length than "effective focal length".
They both have advantages, It depends on your preference what is good or bad. So to me, the main advantage of FF (which I shot occassionally with the D800) is DOF and noise. I think with mFT AI should be able (I did not try or check it) to change the DOF and bokeh so it is more pleasing (although it rarely happens). Currently Panasonic and Olympus have also handheld hires mode. 100 MP on the Panny and 50 MP on the Oly. Panasonic has a subject motion correction that is not perfect, but very good. It won't work for action. So my two reasons to use FF are now being dealt with in part with especially the G9 Mark II. To me though when I shoot sports the Cam+ 100-400 PL lens is just such an enormous difference in weight, that FF is ou tof the question. For others, it is different as we all are different. Nice comparison. Danke, thx!
Nobody seems to discuss if the different sensors are the same quality, have similar clarity etc. after all , it is the potential quality of the image which must vary according to the physical structure of the photoreceptor.
The bigger sensor within the same tech generation will always have better image quality. If you care for lots of background blur, cropped sensors will never make sense: once you match the DOF look of FF, your cropped set up will probably be bigger, heavier and more expensive than the FF equivalent. I don't care much for the background blur. I like F8 on FF. So I find the smaller MFT cameras and lenses very convinient. And image quality is good enough for most (if not all) real situations.
Seeing this video it’s obvious your goal was to prove a point and you indeed presented a strong case. However the weight comparison I find to be unjust as you compare a 70-200 f 4 with a 140-150 f 2.8. I also think you should have been more transparent with the cost of FF super telephoto lenses as well as their size and weight. Finally as others have mentioned in the comments a camera like the OM-1 or the new Panasonic G9ll packs in a lot of useful features that are not there in any FF or APS-c bodies. And they do that at fraction of the price of a high end FF body. Money that can be put into travel and/or your lens collection. If it in the end comes down to pure image quality, dynamic range and ability to crop FF is better, especially with high MP sensors. For this reason I kept one FF body (Nikon Z7) and a couple of lenses when for my wildlife shooting switching to MFT.
What I figured out, it's not entirely the sensors fault. Given sensors from the same generation the low light performance is about the same, but it depends which lenses were used. If you have a 400 mm f4 ISO 1600 on FF you would need a 200 mm f2 ISO 400 on mft to get the same shot with equal depth of field, field of view and about the same performance, but if you only have a 200 mm f4 you will get the depth of field and performance of a 400 mm f8 at ISO 6400 lens on fullframe, which can be an advantage or a disadvantage depending what you want to achieve. From my understanding crop sensors get a bad rep, because people don't have the proper lenses for them, and the lenses aren't available, very expensive or impossible to make. Let's say you want the same field of view and same depth of field of a 50 mm f1.2 on FF on mtf, you would need a 25 mm f0.6 which would be expensive and almost impossible to manufacture (f0.5 is the physical limit for any lens). Most people don't have such lenses, and that's the reason people think their FF body has better low light capabilities as their crop body, because they put their 50 mm f1.8 on FF and see better results, that's because on the crop body it wasn't actually a 50 mm f1.8, it was a behaving like a 100 mm f3.6 on FF wide open, on the crop body they let's say took pictures at 35mm f1.4 ISO 1600 on APS-C for example, on the FF this would be equivalent to 50 mm f2.2 ISO 4000, now they put the 50 mm 1.4 on FF, now they can open the aperture about 1 stop, and take pictures at 50 mm 1.4 ISO 2000. In conclusion if you want to get the best results on a crop body you need very good very fast glass, which is mostly unobtainable, and if available more expensive, which defeats the purpose of having a crop body if you just want to safe money. Shooting on crop sensor can be an advantage if you want more depth of field 200 mm f2.8 on mtf would give you the same depth of field as a 400 mm f5.6 on FF, so you can achieve more depth of field with a smaller lens. In most cases less depth of field is beneficial so most people will get FF, because to achieve the same look on a crop body it would require special lenses which are mostly not available.
It gets more obvious, when we consider an even smaller sensor, like the 1/28" sensor of an iPhone 15 pro. The main camera is a 24 mm FF equivalent f1.8 lens, there is the first problem: manufacturers call out the equivalent focal length but not the equivalent aperture. With a crop factor of about 3.5 the iPhone has a 7 mm f1.8 which is equivalent to a 24 mm f6.3. When we set a full frame camera with a 24 mm lens to f6.3 we get the same field of view and the same depth of field as the iPhone. We also have to adjust for exposure: if we have ISO 1600 on the iPhone, we would need ISO 19600 on the FF camera given the same shutter speed. There we see that the best we can do with the iPhone is a shot at f6.3 and ISO 19600 on full frame, but with the FF camera we can open the aperture depending which lens we have to 1.6 for example which would give us 4 stops extra for exposure, we now could either increase the shutter speed by 4 stops, or lower the ISO 4 stops, which will give us ISO 1225, or divide the 4 stops differently. We can't do that with the iPhone, because we would need a 7 mm f0.45 to archive the same with our FF camera at f1.6, f0.5 is the physical limit for any lens, so this lens would be impossible to manufacture, the practical limit is more like f0.7. In conclusion crop sensors appear to have bad light capabilities, but the truth is that the smaller sensor would require lenses that are unobtainable, to get around that the only thing we can do is to increase the focal length, and if we do that we also need to increase the sensor size accordingly. If you want to get the same shot (same depth of field, same field of view) sensor size doesn't matter so much but if you want any shot (aperture wide open, maximum shutter speed, lowest ISO possible) the FF camera will always be better, because you can utilise the higher focal length to achieve a larger aperture and because of that better exposure settings.
Yes, I agree. However, the problem is that the „right“ lenses just don’t exist for MFT. For example, to have something similar as my 600/4, I would need a 300/2. that doesn’t exist. And to replace my 100-300/2.8 I would need a 50-200/1.4, which also doesn’t exist. Therefore, full frame is the way to go for me
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I agree, the lenses for crop sensor cameras are just not available, there are no "professional" lenses. But what I saw crop sensors can be an advantage when filming video. On FF you basically can't shoot at wider aperture than f2.8 because it's too hard to focus at wider apertures. Then it makes sense shooting at mft, since you can shoot at f1.4 and get the same depth of field like on FF at 2.8. That means that you can use smaller lenses and smaller gear, you also get more in focus. Here is a good video explaining it:ruclips.net/video/YuCFchltKmc/видео.htmlsi=39IgDeva5z67crv6
Thank you for a lovely comparison Fabian. I can't help but imagine that AI will be able to create background blur from photos. It's easy enough to just pick the background with masks. I use light room and you can sort of soften the background up (with Texture and Clarity sliders) but it's not all that great. Does anyone have any thoughts on AI as a tool to create background blur? There certainly would be a market out there for it. Just as there was a market for noise reduction, and sharpening.
Great points Fabian! although the R7 @2900 vs OM-1 @3300 there is absolutely no way I would chose the R7 the OM-1 kills the R7 in so many ways. I had waited a long time for a good crop stacked pro Canon but for a long time they seem to have missed a great opportunity. Canon sensor dev is too slow. You can also get great grey market offers on the feature rich Fuji apsc XH2s. I think I might even prefer the XH2s over the R5 as it's stacked and now they have a good zoom. For my full frame I'm going with the Nikon Z8, Nikon better lenses and the sensor is much more modern stacked and BSI..
Have you had many rolling shutter issues with the R5? I am returning from a 3 weeks trip with 60‘000 photos taken and even for hummingbirds in flight the R5 was doing very well with the electronic shutter. I just think the Fuji and Canon AF systems are on another level. But yes, the Z8 is a very nice camera, I really enjoyed using it
Sensor size has NO effect in light gathering, it is why hand held light meters don't have film/sensor size switches on them. The ONLY thing sensor size does is image crop of a (same) scene, the field of view is where the crop math comes in, not light gathering. What I think you are trying to say is that pixel density on these sensors will effect your noise in higher ISOs because like in a MFT sensor you are working with a lot less pixels in a pixel area that will obviously become more visible in a lower light image. The 20MP MFT sensor is about the same pixel density as a FF 61MP sensor but in the FF sensor the total amount of those same size pixels making the same image, the noise is less noticeable in a final standard size image. The noise it is there but because there are more of those same size pixels you don't notice it as much as you do in an image from a MFT sensor with the same pixel pitch.... It is NOT about the amount of light coming in, Light is constant and a lot has to do with how the processor translates that light but it is the same. Just because the sensor is smaller doesn't mean the light is less, the smaller sensor is only "seeing" less of the scene (Field of View) yet same light values nonetheless, same amount of light is hitting each of those pixels, it's just that one sensor is cropping half or more of those pixels and has to still make the same size image/print than the FF camera but with more pixels, thus more resolution with the same exposure.
No, it’s not pixel density. Sensor size has no effect on the light density, hence the same exposure. But the total amount of light is different. Simple physics 😉
Thanks, Artsilva, At last, someone who knows what they are talking about. If we have two sensors of the same size with the same sized pixels, but one has 5 pixels and other 500, which would generate more electricity?
@@patrickhopkinson1851 Micro-electronics is for those electro engineers to ask, however I would bet that the more photo sites you have on the sensor, the more electronic receptors you have and I assume that it is more spliced up data being transferred and bottlenecked to the light-to-data translator and processor which would in general theory take up more power. I would think it would be the same electricity coming in but dissected and reformed in the processor would be the slight difference in power.
@@artsilva there are so many factors that influence the behaviour of photo electric cells that it is hard to make generalisations about their performance. Some are more efficient at generating electricity from photons than others are and the amount of electricity generated varies in response to different photon frequencies. Some of this is also the subject of academic debate. There seems to be a dispute, for example, over the relationship between cell size and photon gathering: some say the larger the better, some (like Prof Rob Newman) say it makes no difference. I suppose it’s a matter of everything being equal but then nothing ever is. Then it’s complicated further by the effects of all the other components which use the electricity that the cells generate. Light gathering, however, remains solely the function of the objective lens (which strangely, camera people never seem to comment on). Unlike in many optical systems, in photography there is often too much light and it has to be reduced by baffling (f-stops) and limited exposure (shutter speed) and then by sensitivity or gain moderation (ISO). The other thing is that the focal length of the objective lens is one of the determinants of image magnification, the other is the focal length of the eyepiece. Cameras don’t really have eye pieces but I suppose the equivalent is the last lens which focuses the light on the sensor or film. The longer the objective lens focal length and the shorter the “eye piece” focal length, the greater the magnification. It is this system, not the sensor, that determines magnification. In photography terms I suppose that this is referred to as field of view. It is only tangentially related to sensor size.
@@patrickhopkinson1851 Right, it is why cropped sensors are called just that, "cropped" sensors in relation to 35mm film/sensor plane format, because JUST the field of view is narrowed and nothing about light transmissions should even be confused because per unit input is all constant.
FF to me is not what it used to be. For film it was the smallest viable format to get decent quality out of, half frame and 110 were just too small to deliver anything more than a snapshot for memory sake. Digital sensors can resolve so much more detail per area and that makes smaller sensors viable and to me the equivalent to 35mm film and pushes FF sensors to the place medium format had in the film area. A choice for people with the budget and willingness to carry more than necessary to get the job done in order to get that extra bit of resolution. For me the choice is clear and I rather have an enjoyable time in the field, even if that means having to give up a bit of quality overhead. For others that may not be the case and I can understand that. While editing and looking at the files on a monitor it is neat to be able to zoom in to crazy amounts, but I just don't see that translate into the finished print on my wall in a way that outweighs the actual weight of the gear. It helps that I never have been a super shallow depth of field shooter, so I don't miss that, but I can again understand that this can be a valid reason to choose a bigger sensor. For my landscapes I even benefit from being able to get everything in focus without having to close up too much. One thing I have to vehemently disagree on tho is that bigger sensors capture more light. They don't. You still get the same amount of light hitting the sensor, just focussed on a smaller area. At least if you use lenses optimized for the respective sensor size.
Hi! Yes, image quality has improved significantly in all formats. But my statement with the light is still correct. The light per are remains the same, hence the exposure stays. But since the larger sensor captures more light, you get better noise performance. Otherwise an „optimized“ lens would result in a brighter image than a „non-optimized“ lens and we see that this is not the case
I'd say FF collects 2,5 times more light than aps-c. So when we are comparing m43 to Canon aps-c we end up with much smaller difference than between aps-c and FF
Nice 'food for thought' . I'm currently a user of both m43 Olympus om5 and FF nikon d610 cameras, and I have to say that an f1.8 either FF or m43 lens will for our purposes receive the same light, ie require you to use the same ISO, shutter speed and aperture to achieve very similar exposures. For example try using the m43 17mm f1.8 vs an equivalent FF 35mm f1. 8. Light is just collected and measured on a specific unit of surface so in theory it is obvious that a lens with a wider opening receives more light overall. Please look into this with real life examples, and pleeeeease prove me wrong. Then I will feel better on spending so much money on FF. Please make sure that the sensors are of a similar generation.
Thanks. Yes, I did some tests. You are correct that the exposure will stay the same because the amount of light per area stays the same. However, the total amount of light on the full frame sensor is more. I can maybe try to show it in more detail in another video
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I think this also has to do with the larger size sensor pixels. Bigger pixels are generally better in collecting light (not to mention dynamic range).
The light gathering of the sensor is of no consequence. It is the ability of the pixel sensor to gather light. For a given resolution, the smaller the sensor, the smaller the pixel sensor. That is the issue. I think the way Canon does it is the way to go. You have a set of lenses. And you attach either a FF or CF body to them depending on what you want to do. That implies you go CF when you need reach and the light is not completely terrible. Otherwise go FF. And then you add a few CF lenses for compact use. One thing I wish they would do more on is the use of speedboosters on CF. It makes a 500mm F4 into a 350mm F2.8….
There will always be those that spend more time arguing the strengths of their choice of system than actually shooting images, of course. Yes, each has its own advantages and, ultimately, it boils down to what the photographer seeks from their images. I have shot Olympus most of my life and Oly is what my dad shot professionally. I sometimes envy the low-light performance of full-frame but with the post-processing options available today, it really isn't an issue anymore. The end results for well-shot images printed and viewed at normal distances are sufficiently similar that it really doesn't make any difference, period. Sure, there will always be exceptions and those that leave nose-prints on prints... In which case they probably lack social graces in the first place, eh? lol Those that spend more time "policing" the photography forums than actually shooting imaginative images are the sheep of the community in the first place and at the end of the day, I do my own thing anyway. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Good points and it truly boils down to personal preference. My MFT gear isn't the lightest for packing into remote locations but it's my system of choice and my chosen "tool" for creativity, no different than those that choose other systems. I love the processing power in my E-M1X and I carry both my wildlife and landscape glass with me at the same time, so I'd never argue that my gear is lighter. lol In the end, it's my old back that must cope and it's still worthwhile for me.
I've got to compromise because cost is an issue. Also because when i do bird photography it usually includes a lot of walking. Ive seen some incredible full frame photos. You can see fish in a birds mouth while it's flying and the detail is incredible. But that's like 15k worth of gear that weighs god knows how much 😀 I currently have the G9 100-400 combo and it's pretty good. Outside of expensive full frame gear I've yet to see photos better than the ones I've seen produced with the Olympus 300mm pro. Ok they might be equal but i haven't seen better. The Canon R7 and 800mm combo is one in interested in for those nice days. You just have to decide what your budget and weight limit is and what light you will usually be getting.
You are confused, my friend. The full frame will capture a total of 4x as much light as a micro 4/3 but the sensor size is 4x bigger. So, that light is spread out over an area that is 4x bigger. Therefore, light per unit area of the sensor is the same. That is my understanding.
If you were to look at the cropped area of the full frame in the centre of the image, the quantity of light gathered will be the same as the micro 4/3. So, the centre of the image is the same quality? Why when the area of sensor of the micro 4/3 and full frame gather the same amount of light will the quality be better on full frame?
@@youphototubeObviously if you’re cropping a FF you’re essentially getting a MFT. The difference is if you use the bigger area. For example, if the area of the sensor used for the picture is twice as big, you’ll get twice the light.
No the full frame captures more light. 200 mm 2.8 on mft is equivalent to 400 mm 5.6, but if you have 400 mm f4 on FF you have one stop more light, the same with ISO, the video creator got it wrong, ISO is proportional to the crop factor squared not the crop factor, so if you shoot at ISO 200 on FF, you need ISO 800 on mtf, you lost 2 stops of light, so in total you lost 3 stops of light, and image quality is dependent on how much light you have. There are no free lunches with this, there is always a compromise, the bigger and better the sensor and the better and faster your glass is, the better will the image quality be.
A FF + 600mm F/4.0 has clear advantages, but for me it's too heavy and too expensive.
I use OM-1 + 300mm F/4.0 and get very nice results. The lens has a very good IQ and the background gets blured enough. I can add more blur at editing if need it.
The noise was never a problem since it can be removed easily by editors like DXO Lab.
I think it’s a personal choice. Everybody needs to figure out what works best for hin/her
I was happy to sell my 500mm f/4 and pickup the same OM-1 and 300mm f/4!
@@MotoRich900 glad to have sold my 60-600 sigma and now on the same setup as yours.
@@MotoRich900 Hey mate! what ISO could be expected with this setup in like "forest area" where the light is reeealllyy absent? With my A6400 and 200-600 sony at aperture f6.3 and times of 1/500 (to don't get subject blurred - becasue of lack of body stabilization) I end up with ISO 12.800 and that's fkin sad.. And people talk about dynamic range, when in that situation I lose all of that. If I had fullframe, I'd also lost 50% of dynamic range with that ISO.. I heard you can do very low times like 1/30 or 1/60 to "still subject" with that 300 mm f4 lens, so I guess ISO could be then around ISO 3200 or even lower?
I currently own OM-1 and 300/4 and moving to R7+100-500mm Weight and quality is the most important to me. Weight about the same, but you'll get zoom and 800mm of reach. Same comes for picture quality, maybe R7 has better but not by much. Unfortunately m43 doesn't have top quality tele zooms except 150-400mm with is crazy expensive and big.
If someone is not fortunate enough to live or photograph in a place with a lot of sunlight, or if someone only needs short walks to reach desired photo locations, then KB makes perfect sense. For those who are lucky enough to always have plenty of light available or need long walks (or climbing or bike rides), crop sensors, especially M43, are the best choice. These devices are tools! One must choose the right tool for the desired task. Unnecessary weight is always and simply a bad choice. On the other hand, in certain situations additional weight is required to achieve the desired iQ, although editing software significantly reduces the need to carry additional weight. I really don't know many professional photographers who only use one system.
I agree, each system has its advantages. And you need to choose the one that fits your needs best (or as you say, use two)
If people were more honest with themselves, µ4/3 is more than suitable for ninety - five percent of situations…
😏
Yep, professional photographer makes convincing argument for professional photographer using the best possible gear for image quality, regardless of weight, cost or other considerations. That's absolutely fine. There's no world in which I can justify dropping £3000-4000 on an R5, and £11000+ on either a 400mm f2.8 or a 600mm f4, let alone both. If I did, I'd be terrified to take them out of the house. If that's the requirement to photograph wildlife, I'm not allowed to play. I *can* afford a micro4/3 camera, and to splash out on a 100-400mm lens, and a little collection of second-hand lenses that allow me to dabble with other types of photography as well. That seems absolutely fine for people taking photos primarily for their own enjoyment.
It is about money and weight.
I just don't use cameras enough to justify spending big money and I don't park near a bird hide. Weight is important.
So m43 suits me. I don't go out in poor light for wildlife photography. So the Olympus 300 F4 is plenty of lens for me.
Only if I was making money from the photo's would I spend big money. The difference is usually only noticeable when you pixel peep the feathers and should we really need to do that.
I don't believe full frame is always better. Not with the affordable lenses. The canon and Sony 200-800 and 200-600 don't blow the Olympus lens away and weigh a noticeable amount more.
It's fine margins I believe unless you buy the real quality lenses.
You lost me with KB.
Having used both the Canon M50 and M5, along with the Olympus EPL-10, I've found that despite the slight difference in sensor resolution (24 megapixels for Canon versus 16 megapixels for Olympus), the noise and low-light performance between them is practically indistinguishable. However, where the Olympus really shines is in its sensor stabilization feature. Even on their most affordable body, it significantly enhances low-light shooting, enabling me to capture crisp, sharp photos at lower ISO settings, often at shutter speeds as slow as 1/10. It's truly remarkable how much of a difference this stabilization makes in challenging lighting conditions.
I tested the G9 II against the R10 and was surprised that they were quite comparable in terms of IS
In my experience with Canon, I've been thoroughly impressed by their top-tier gear. However, I've noticed that their entry-level and mid-level offerings sometimes feel lacking in attention to detail and features compared to their higher-end counterparts. This can leave users feeling unsatisfied, especially when they're unable to justify investing in pricier equipment.
For example, I initially invested in the M series because it matched my needs for compact cameras that deliver decent photos on the go. However, I'm disappointed by Canon's decision to discontinue this line entirely. Now, there are no adapters available for Canon R APC, rendering my existing lenses virtually worthless. Additionally, the fact that M series sensors were consistently behind the competition adds to my frustration at times. So, while I hope Canon is improving their lower-tier offerings, it will take some time for me to regain trust in their products.
AFAIK, M to R adapters are physically not possible
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography For photos, maybe. For video? It's a different story.
The Pangolin Wildlife Photography channel shows the bokeh difference between the OM1 300 F4 vs the R3 600 F4. The video is titled 'Should you switch to a Micro 4:3 Camera for wildlife?' and the comparison is at the 18:41 mark. BIG difference in my opinion!
Yep, I know the video and I agree 😊
Full frame glass for wildlife will give you better separation of the subject than 4/3 or APSC but it also gives greater separation between your wallet and your pocket and that is a problem for many photographers.
If course, of you shoot an actual 600mm on the m43, you'd get the same separation 😁 of course you'd just be looking at the animals ear, but hey....
@@JeffreyJohnsonCLOL😂
You can easily soften the background in an m43 image with image editing software. The weight and size difference between the two lenses can't be changed, and that matters when you're hauling those lenses any distance. Don't ignore the fact that the 600 will be tripod mounted, so you'll have the weight of the tripod as well. Consider that, when you're flying anywhere, and m43 is the clear winner if using long glass.
I’m a M4/3 shooter and agree with everything you’ve stated here. It’s easy to see the separation of subject from the background in full frame photos and I often get jealous. At the same time I carry both wildlife and landscape lens and I couldn’t do that if I was shooting full frame.
Thanks! Both systems habe their advantages 😊
I am still in both camps I shoot Sony a9 full frame for those fast action and birds in flight. But I am shooting more and more with my g9 because I am beginning to shoot more video and just like the Panasonic better with video. But the g9 af just can’t even compete with the speed and accuracy of the a9. Maybe the new g9 II can close the gap a bit only time will tell if it will be good enough. But for now the A9 with the GM 70-200mm 2.8 version two is just hard to beat I also have the GM 100-400mm but depending on how well the new g9 II and lumix 100-400mm performs that may replace the GM for bird and wildlife videos
I don't want to shoot a clear oryx set against a blurred savannah bushveld. I want you to see all I see.
I think the light gathering statement is a glib over simplification and plainly wrong.
The reason Full frame has blurred backgrounds is that the full frame doesn’t gather or concentrate the available light enough to provide any definition to most of the picture. Full Frame is less capable of giving a clear definition unless you risk very small apertures and diffraction. So, if you want a dreamy shot where part of the subject is clearly defined (in focus), and you're left to guess the location sometimes 90+% of the picture, Fullframe is for you.
I think of sensor size, much like a projected image. The light from the projector passes through the lens onto the projector screen (sensor). The bigger the projector screen (sensor), the less light (lumens per sq cm) the duller the picture, and the less definition is visible (bokeh). The smaller the projector screen (sensor), the more light (lumens per sq cm) the brighter the picture, and you see more definition.
There is also a popular fallacy about f stops and lenses. An f1.8 lens is an f1.8 lens irrespective of sensor size, medium format, FF, APS-C, MFT, 1", etc. People often confuse smaller sensor performance and start saying incorrectly that an MFT f1.8 lens only lets in f3.6.
With all things, you look at what's available and spend your money on your preference.
If you have to spend tens of thousands on a lens to achieve what another format can give you for far less, you haven’t done enough research and aren't using enough camera formats.
Why not? Photographers have been using full frame/35mm for 100 years and seemed to cope with camera and lens size. Today's full frame and APS-C cameras are quite small and light now.
Nice topic, sadly no practice comparisons with pics, but the theory I will believe. I changed last year from Nikon. D500 to complete OM-1 with a serie of Olympus Zuiko lenses. Not a single second regrets! Most uses pics are on the internet and the results are stunning from 300 mm f4 till macro 90 mm f3.5. So I am very content with this system. Main advantage is the compact and light weight of my gear. As you said choose what suits to you and then you will have the BEST combination ;-)
Exactly! Have fun 😊
Fabian, thanks for the calm, unbiased comparisons. I have a number of photo friends who have switched to micro four thirds and are just fanatical in claiming its lighter while having next to no image quality downside. Every time i’ve tried a micro four thirds camera, I’ve found the dynamic range to be just unacceptably limited. So i’ve made apsc camera my smallest format i’ll consider.
Thanks for your nice comment 😊
Your friends are kind of right. If you crop into the 60MP picture from the FF to match the frame of the M43 camera you‘ll find that noise levels look surprisingly similar. On the whole I find the debate pretty pointless as you can achieve stunning results with any system if you know what you‘re doing
You must have extremely sensitive eyes. It's cool if you like full frame more than m43, but there is only slightly more than 1EV difference between Nikon Z7ii and OM-1 for example at base ISOs. Almost any editing software could recover at least 2 stops on either end I think. Not bashing full frame here. I am thinking of adding one to my kit too just for the experience.
@@martinhommel9967 Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Some find it unacceptable, some find it acceptable. Stunning to some people but not stunning to other people. As long as you like using your camera and think that the photos are stunning, that is the most important!
MFT is fun AND you get the shot, FF Z9 is work, and you have to work hard to get the shot YOU want. The camera takes fantastic shots, super sharp, but are they what you 'saw' and wanted.
Personally I clearly prefer fullframe over mft
Recently I've seen some videos which were really bashing on the MFT systems. But also, I've seen a LOT of absolutely awesome, eye bleeding sharp bird photos, taken with this system. For me, the proof is in the pudding. I currently shoot with a Canon APS-C combo for a 1280mm equivalent. But an MFT system that gets me 1200mm would be pretty nice as well. I definitely do not want a FF system for my bird photography.
Each system has advantages and disadvantages
I have a Canon t3i with a 73-300 mm, and recently I bought a m43 Lumix g95D with a Zuiko 75-300 mm lens. Both cameras with their lenses weight almost the same, both have almost the same size and...guess what? That myth of "with a m43 you will double the reach of a 300 mm lens, because of the x2 crop factor" is totally FALSE! I've used both cameras for birs photography and the m43 doesn't double the reach, I mean, if you have a 300 mm lens mounted in an m34, in practice, you're not gonna get 600 mm, believe me! You will have the same reach. So, do you wanna get the reach of a 600 mm using a 300 mm mounted on a m43? You are never gonna have it! The crop factor only means that you have a narrower angle of vision in a m43 or any crop sensor. So, if you have a FF camera with a 300 mm placed, idk 5 meters away from a 10 member family who want to taken a group picture, your FF with that lens is gonna capture an image with the 10 persons. If you replace the camera for a m43 (in my case) with the same distance and a 300 mm lens, due to the sensor size, you ate not gonna capture de 10 persons, you are gonna have more or les 8.5 persons in your picture. And this picture will be enlarged to the number of pixels of the sensor, this can function as a little zoom effect, but the effect is just because the image has to fill the number of pixels of your sensor. In the other hand, and this is what nobody talks about is that the sharpness of your image depends of your lens and its capability to get a sharp image. If your image isn't sharp from the beginning, forget about the crop factor and all that discussion (I'd say that bull manure lol) no matter how big your image can be, ypu are gonna have a bad quality image, a huge non focused image. So. What you have to understand is that you have to start by having your subject and the main composition ocupping at least 50% of your image. Why? Because when you are editing the picture you are gonna cut out the 50% of pixels that don't go with your final picture. Depending on what your subject is, this rule can vary, it depends on the composition, as I said. So, the clue to get sharp pictures is to be as near as possible from your subject, that will give you the best IQ. Please forget about these myths. That's the reason why it's much better to focus on getting the best lens you can achieve and in second the camera. The camera market has a lot of useful functions on their gear, choose your camera due to the kind of final result you wanna get and for the functions that are useful for you, the thing of the reach has one only solution: Get the best and big lens you can achieve and try to get closer to your subject. There's no other option.
Totally agree, the results are what matters
Correct - use the system that works the best for you. I am very satisfied with my MFT - the unbelievable image stabe, and the features are great. I can take all the lenses I need, anywhere I want! The images from the Leica lenses are extremely sharp and have great contrast!
Thanks for your comment 😊
I shoot both M43 OM1 and Nikon Z8. I find uses for both. Fun factor OM1 all the way. Image quality Nikon. As the software wars heat up , I think it will be a mute point.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Nikon is way too expensive
So is Sony, OM Systems, Canon, Panasonic and Fuji. We all want cheaper cameras 😅
There are pros and cons to every system. I've used most of them at this point, and ended up with a Lumix G9.
I totally agree, everybody needs to find the system that suits him or her most
Nice topic. I really like m4/3 and use it for a long time
Have fun 😊
I chose m4/3 as I prefer a smaller system/lenses. Now they have gotten huge, negating the advantage. But, I keep my Panasonic gx9 and g100. If I decide on a larger body, will add a FF or APSc.
Thanks for sharing your experiences
Lenses are still small though.
It's clear to me that larger sensors have many advantages, but when i see the lens in the thumbnail, im releived i have an M43 camera
Haha, and that Nikon lens is much shorter than my Canon 😅
@@FabianFoppNaturephotographyThere's no way I'd get that lens everywhere that I'd want to take it. I once took my Panasonic 100-400mm on an overnight camp on top of Helvellyn (English Lake District, 950m above sea level, tricky scrambling to get to the top). With a 35mm camera, I'm probably limited to the long end of a wide short telephoto zoom, possibly a 70-200.
One thing I realized is that if the subject is occupying the same area of the image, a given lens e.g. 50mm f1.8 will give you the same SIZE of bokeh balls at INFINITY regardless of sensor size. What will change is the NUMBER of these balls, due to compression (different FOV). Also, the smaller the sensor, the less sudden the DOF blurring will be.
So, one can argue that if your background is far enough M43 will give you portraits that keep entire subject in focus and have less distracting but equally smooth background :)
Sure, but if you use a 50/1.8 at MFT I would rather use a 85/1.8 or 135/1.8 on full frame. And this will indeed look like a very different bokeh.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography fair point, but already the lens achieving 100 f3.6 will be larger on full frame than 50mm f1.8 will be on mft... it ends up being so due to the smaller image circle needed... it will also be interesting to see the future of f 0.95 lenses for crop sensors, most of which are really compact
@@antraxuran9 can you give us some examples where ~equivalent lenses exist and m43 is much smaller?
For example 25mm f1.4 vs 50mm 2.8. Sony has 50mm 2.5 you can take this one. Does m43 have anything smaller and lighter at 1.4?
Thanks for making this video. There are lots of discussions around this topic, and I was happily surprised that at 10:25, you made a very meaningful comparison in terms of lenses. You are absolutely right, the important element is the absolute diameter of the optics, as this is what determines the amount of light that reaches the sensor (assuming that the lens is designed for the sensor size). That diameter is the important factor that determines the amount of noise and background blur in the final images. In fact, if you take a picture on an MFT with a 300mm F4 lens, at ISO 400, at 1/500s, it will look almost exactly like a picture shot on FF with a 600mm lens at F8, at ISO 1600, at 1/500s. Same angle of view, same exposure, same noise, same background blur (that's an experiment that is very easy for anyone to do).
The thing that kept me away from MFT is the very narrow selection of suitable bodies and lenses for wildlife. Also, the only 2 reasonable lenses for wildlife are very expensive for what they are. With FF, I can get an excellent Sony 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 for $2K. The closest MFT equivalent would be the Olympus M.Zuiko 300mm f/4, but that's not zoom, it's 2/3 stop slower, has comparable IQ, and is $1K more expensive than the Sony. The OM SYSTEM 150-400mm f/4.5 is still 1/3 stop slower - agreed it has a bit more reach and comes with integrated 1.25 TC - but it costs $7.5K and IQ isn't exceptionally good (to say it tactfully).
Thanks a lot for sharing your thought. Have fun taking pictures 😊
Oly lenses changed significantly when they went to MFT mirrorless. The original 4/3 DSLR system had some truly superb glass - glass that was not built with anything in mind except for quality, and wow, it was expensive: the 300mm f/2.8, weighing in at something like 3.4kg, was $8k on release in 2003. This was what Oly called its Super High Quality (SHQ) range, with the other lenses being the 90-250mm f/2.8; the 150mm f/2; the 35-100mm f/2; the 14-35mm f/2; and the 7-14mm f/4. All the glass was fast, tough and optically excellent. I think that by 2010, Oly had realized that the development potential of the 4/3 sensor was limited when compared to the paths that other manufacturers had chosen - APSC and FF. They needed something that would create viability for the system (they were in deep with no way out) and going small and light - selling those photographically peripheral 'advantages' - was the best course open to them (after-all, the idea had pedigree - the original OM-1 was a seminal camera). Effectively, they created a 'Cult' around a set of 'virtues' that most people had never really given much thought to, all the while managing not to talk about the downsides, and said 'Cult' persists to this day. Now, i'm actually not disparaging Oly in any general way here - just telling a little of it from the perspective of someone who first got an OM-1N in the 1970s, and continues (though not exclusively) to shoot Oly every day. Cheers.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, makes sense!
Nailed it! M43 is like a religion you aren’t allowed to question. I’m glad people are happy with it and enjoy their photography, I enjoy mine as a general purpose everyday shooter, but there’s no comparison to full frame when you want to recover deep shadows or shoot moving subjects in low light.
This is the truth. They will defending their patch (quite possibly regretting it) until their dying day. As an owner of several Om1 film cameras, and a Sony A6400 I can't believe Om did not opt for APS-C. After all, the sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame.
E' molto semplice; già con la Olympus E-1 di soli 5mp, chi faceva i matrimoni e stampava nel formato 30x40cm (amo la proporzione 4/3) si era reso conto che la qualità era davvero ottima, le foto anche a 800 iso non erano poi così rumorose e si potevano usare anche diaframmi f:2,8 o poco più chiusi, per raccontare l'evento.
Questo dava la possibilità di non dover alzare la sensibilità con minore luce ambiente rispetto ad un corredo full-frame a cui si era abituati.
Ora, se nel 2003 un sensore 1/4 del full-frame regalava questa qualità con pochi megapixel, nel consorzio 4/3 sapevano che si poteva solo migliorare, nel tempo. 😉
La realtà è che quando si stampano le foto, tanti problemi esistenziali spariscono.
Le tante coppie di sposi che ho fotografato erano felicissimi dei colori, nitidezza, tridimensiionalità che il piccolo sensore Kodak riusciva a regalare.
Aggiungo, che in futuro saranno i sensori da 1 pollice ad avere maggiore convenienza nella maggioranza dei generi fotografici.
E lo sfuocato?
Ci saranno software in grado di dare questa possibilità come oggi esiste nel migliorare il rumore.
Infine, (opinione personale) cosa davvero cambia tra un uccello con uno sfondo molto sfuocato ripreso in Africa invece che in Italia (è solo un esempio) per un osservatore?
Nulla.
E quale divertimento sarebbe dover fare foto seriali tutte simili negli anni?
Mistero. 🤔
I think your point made around 10:00 is valid. The problem is not one of sensor format as much as one of what is offered. I personally love the f4 pro lenses made by OM System, like the 12-45 and the 40-150 because they are so compact yet offer stellar image quality if there's enough light. I would love to see pro grade f8 full frame lenses in a similar format but it seems that we won't get that anytime soon. With primes, the FF juggernauts have seemed to explore this direction (great image quality & compact form factor at the sacrifice of maximum aperture) a bit, I absolutely applaud Sony for making lenses like the 40mm F 2.5 G. I hope it'll be successful.
Thanks 😊
No one would buy an f/8 lens in the full frame world. Don't forget that a 200mm f/8 FF lens is much worse than a 100mm f/4 MFT lens! They have two things in common - field of view, and depth of field. Yet the FF lens only gets 25% of the light!
Great video Fabian. I prefer full frame in most cases, but of course the mft can be very good, specially for shore birds where often the background can be further away, and maybe birds in flight sometimes too. Keep up your great work, both with this videos and with your work as a biolog.
Greetings from an Norwegian living in South Brazil
Thanks! True, for shore birds I often stop down on my full frame camera anyway. Cheers!
Fabian, you are right. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Some find the photos unacceptable, some find it acceptable. Stunning photos to some people but not stunning to others. As long as you like using your camera and think that your photos are stunning, that is the most important! The worst thing to happen is when you don't use the camera and spend lots of time criticising others because of sensor size!!!
Exactly, that’s why I never understood about some comments…
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Haha yes. I don't mind carrying heavier equipment as long as I enjoy the process of taking photos. Some like carrying lighter cameras and lens and think their photo comes out great according to their own eyes, so be it. No right or wrong...
I don't get it why light gathering ability is depending on the sensor size. When using the same f-stop on FF, APS-C, or MFT sensors the light gathering ability and as a consequence the picture quality depends on the pixel size and the manufacturer's ability to control noise vs. ISO, not on the number of overall pixels and sensor size. Given the same pixel size and noise control the picture quality will look the same on any sensor, but of course the amount of crop will be different. Your elaboration focusses primarily on the differences of background blur due to the fact that you do have to have different distances from your subject while using different sensor sizes to achieve the same look, not on overall picture quality. Hence, a e.g. 3.7 micron MFT sensor should deliver the same quality as a FF sensor with far more pixels but the same pixel size. Of course, I am open for differing opinions, since this just my personal understanding of the matter :)
@noPrinting If life would be so simple ;) Take a look at the following examples of sensors:
- Sony IMX455, FF, 3,76 micron pixels (e.g. in Sony A7R V)
- Sony IMX571, APS-C, 3,76 micron pixels
- Canon EOS 650D, APS-C, 4.30 micron pixels
- OM System OM-1, MFT, 3.36 micron pixels
So, the relations between sensor size and pixel size is not that clear, especially when it comes to comparing older sensors with often larger pixels with modern ones. But admittetely, as a rule of thump your assumption will mostly work when only looking at one generation of sensors. That does not render the original statement true in all cases, however.
Additionally, as already states above, some modern sensors with smaller pixels have better noise control than older sensors with larger pixels. So this is taken into account as well.
The exposure is the same for all sensor sizes, as this is a measure independent of the sensor size. But due to the bigger sensors, FF collects overall more light and provides better image quality. It’s not so much about pixel size as about sensor size btw. I hope this helps to clarify 😊
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Thanks for the explanation. However, I dare to disagree. That would imply that a picture shot with an FF sensor - cropped to APS-C size - would be superior to a picture shot with ASP-C given the same pixel size and quality. But this is not the case, since on pixel level they are all the same. FF gathers more light in total, that is correct. But the light is distributed over a larger area which leads to a draw. Look at Canon EOS R6 and EOS R5. They have the same sensor size, but R6 has bigger pixels and thus better low light capabilities and noise control.
Apart from that, I forgot to mention that I really enjoy your videos since they are very much focussed on real world experience rather than lab results. I did not want to shift the focus away from this more important aspect by opening a tech discussion.
Maybe there is a misunderstanding. If you crop a full frame image to aps-c then you loose the „full frame advantage“. But if you don’t need to crop because you can get physically closer (or use a different lens with 1.6x more focal length but the same aperture), then you have a big advantage with the full frame camera 😊
The R6 is ever so slightly better than the R5 in High ISO, but IIRC this was only the case from something like 6400 ISO on. I think it’s important not to compare noise at pixel level but at a certain print size.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Agreed, there are some characteristics that are in favour for FF, like a more shallow depth of field due to being closer to the subject. On the other hand I use my APS-C camera for macros, since in this case I do want more depth of field. Additionally, I use high pixel density cameras to have more "reach" for birding, but have to deal with more noise due this high pixel density. Hence, it is not about an objective quality but more about personal preference and which sensor is better suited for a task. I think that is the bottom line for me.
Regarding pixel noise: This is an important topic for me, since I do a lot of deep sky astrophotography and pixel noise is one of if not the most important factor in this discipline in my opinion. Maybe this hobby spoils my perspective on daylight photography a bit ;)
I use all these systems. FF when I am able to carry it. Or when I don't have to carry. But all other times I choose m43. M34 for travel, hiking or R7 + 800mm f11 for running after small birds
Thanks for sharing
My R7 and RF100-400mm combo gives me 640mm field of view with 33mp and it weighs 1475 grams. With the rf800mm on my R7 or R8 I'm also getting tons of reach in a very lightweight package with a crop sensor and a full frame camera and it's also very affordable. It's good that we have this many options! Micro four-thirds doesn't have all of the small and light and affordable combinations.
Have fund with the equipment 😊
I have the same as you just not the 800. Do you have the f11 800? I gave up on olympus due to image quality after cropping or any post processing
I am delighted to see APSC included in your comparison. Too often, full frame and MFT are treated as the only options, even though APSC is a natural "intermediate" comparison for both. Nicely done.
Thanks 😊
Great commentary. I use all 3 systems MFT (& FT), APS-C (& APS-H) & FF for a wide spectrum of situations and generally with older gear. What do I prefer? It's a bit like asking what is your favourite child. I can get closer to an honest answer if asked what is your favourite for urban, landscape, portraits, macro, wildlife, general walk around, etc. I could give an answer for each category. But if I was a professional wildlife photographer - like you - I would make the same decisions you did, and for your reasons. But, I am an amateur who loves photography in all of its variant moods and possibilities.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences
I own the OM-1 and Nikon Z7II. I mainly doing street photography and sometimes portrait. I find the M43 just have the right amount of bokeh with a 25mm F1.4 lens especially shooting at night! 50mm F1.8 bokeh is sometimes a bit too shallow on the Nikon. True that the image quality on the OM-1 may not be as good. Then again, I only print up to A3+ size and the OM-1 is plenty enough and it takes my heart for daily use.💁♂ Both have their merits~
Definitely! If depth of field is too shallow you could always stop down 😊
Between AI Noise reduction and PS/LR Lens Blur, the full frame "advantages" are quickly going away... whereas the size, weight and price make M4/3 pretty much a clear winner if you travel, walk a long way, and want weather sealed for lets say real telephoto (Camera, 600mm f/4 lens, or roughly 200-800 f/4.5 equivalent). There is no contest having used both Full Frame and M4/3. I love the fact that full frame has higher resolution. I truly miss that capability. I happily trade that for the size, weight, price advantage. The other issue I have with comparisons between M4/3 and Full Frame is the perception that F/4 on MFT = F/8 on Full Frame. Frankly, that is BS. If I shoot in the same conditions a MFT and Full Frame camera, I use the same exposure values to get equivalent exposures. Same ISO, F-stop, shutter speed yield a well exposed image on MFT and Full Frame. Only difference is depth of field. So now let's compare: Olympus 300mm f/4 vs Sony f/4: $2,999 vs $12,998; 8.9 inches tall vs 17.7"; 3.3 lbs vs 6.7 lbs. M4/3 is 25% of the price, half the size and half the weight. I know which I would rather pay for and carry with me. And if I need to use a little post processing to increase background blur, I'm happy to spend the time. Will the Full Frame end up with slightly better image quality.. probably. Would I notice most of the time without pixel peeping... I doubt it.
It’s a difference in depth of field and image quality. But as I also mentioned in the video, MFT also has some advantages
F4 on 43 collects as much light as f8 on FF, and has "same size bokeh". Those are facts, no bs. There is generally no size advantage. Just look at Sony 24, 40 and 50mm or Sigma small primes, or some samyang primes, or even zooms like Tamron 17-28, 28-75, 70-180, zeiss 35mm 2.8, new sony kit lens, etc etc.
For example Panasonic 10-25mm 1.7, which is 20-50mm 3.4 equivalent, weights 690g, has 77mm filter thread, while Tamron 20-40mm 2.8 only weights 365g and has 67mm filter thread, and is also physically shorter.. and also half the price... while Sony 20-70 f4 (only 1/3 stop slower) is 488g, 72mm filter, shorter, also alot cheaper..
Lets look at Olympus 17mm 1.2, aka 34mm 2.4 equivalent... compare that to Zeiss 35mm 2.8... Oly is again exactly twice the cost, weights 390g vs Zeiss at 120g!! Lol.
panasonic 12mm 1.4, 335g
Sony 24 2.8, 162g, again much cheaper.
Olympus 45mm 1.2, 410g
Signa 90mm 2.8, 295g, 30% cheaper.
Sony 85mm 1.8, 371g, also 30% cheaper.
samyang 75mm 1.8, 230g, 1/3 the price
Last one:
Olympus 25mm 1.2 410g
Sony 50mm 2.5 174g, again 30% cheaper.
Where is the size advantage?
I realise not a single comparison is 100% perfect (goes both ways), but overall it is clear to me that there is no magic size advantage..
When it comes to telephoto, it is a bit difrent i am sure.. but i am not sure if anyone is making slow primes for FF, except Canon 600 and 800 or 900mm
Canon 600mm f11, 930g
Olympus 300mm f4, 1475g
Olympus is physically smaller, faster for one whole stop, so not fair at all.. and i do believe m43 should generally have advantage here.. but maybe not as much as i thought.
Fair comparison would be:
1. Canon R6II + Canon 200-800mm to OM-1/G9II + Olympus 100-400mm.
2. Canon R7 + 200-800mm to OM-1/G9II + OM-System 150-600mm
3. Canon R6II + Canon EF 400mm 5.6 to G9II + Leica 200mm 2.8
4. Canon R6II + 800mm f11 to OM-1/G9II + Olympus 300mm Pro+ MC-14 or Leica 200mm 2.8 + TC-20.
Sadly noone makes this kind of comparisons.
Unfortunately, I don’t have access to these lenses and cameras
Very nice and educative material! I agree with everything that you said, apart from the numbers quoted on ISO sensitivity (around 3:10 and after) - the thing is that the base ISO is very different depending on the sensor size (and manufacturer). If you put your m4/3 camera at 25 mm and f/2 and compare it to a full frame at 50mm f/4 you will find that you get much lower ISO with m4/3 due to the fact that the base ISO is different. It doesn't change anything, however, because when you look at the noise, you will find that it's almost exactly the same in both pictures. So all I want to say is that the ISO is not directly comparable across different sensors and it might be very confusing to do so.
Otherwise - a really great material!
Thanks! Yes, I‘m aware of the difference. But it’s actually not only true at the base ISO, but at all ISO settings. For example, ISO 800 on MFT will look similar in noise than ISO 3200 on Fullframe
I think APS-C is the best balance because you get compatibility with full-frame lenses and the benefits of more reach for wildlife.
It’s definitely a nice option, especially if you want to save weight and money
Definitely. APS-C is the sweet spot. Camera likes the Sony E6400 but just a small as Olympus range and technically better. The lenses might be slightly large but I don't know why we're obsessed with tiny cameras. Shallower DOF, better low light, still small form, prices not more than most micro 4/3 systems.
For detail with distant subjects like the Moon and birds, aps-c is fine and even micro 4/3, but for best flexibility a full-frame camera is the best all-rounder. Especially one with a sensor unburdened by an anti-alias filter. A few go even further with 100Mp medium format sensor digital like fuji's.
For birds I prefer FF because pf the shallower depth of field. Medium format would be very heavy though (there are actually no suitable lenses for wildlife )
I suppose nobody uses a very long lens for landscape shots. There used to be a pentax manual 800mm f6.7 medium format lens.@@FabianFoppNaturephotography
I have Nikon full frame cameras and Lumix m43,s cameras. Each has its place and the newer one’s preform wonderfully.
Enjoy!
I shoot with a 1/4.0'' sensor, which is 3.6/2.7 mm, and I love it. To be content with your sensor size all depends on your life partner/partners
👍🏻
This video has a lot of mistakes!
Full frame does not collect more light than APS-C or M43. That is just wrong!
Full Frame can collect more light per pixel but only if we do not talk about FF sensors with very high megapixel counts. The difference in quality comes from the noise that is generated as the pixels in crop sensors have to be much smaller to reach the same Megapixel count.
F2 is also F2 on micro four thirds. A F4 lens on M43 collects as much light for the sensor as a F4 on Full Frame! The crop factor does not apply to light gathering!
The only thing is that M43 has double the depth of field (less Bokeh / Toneh).
Summary: You just have less sensor area for each pixel. A 60Megapixel FUll Frame will have similar pixel density than a 24 Megapixel APS-C and therefore will not necessarily work much better in low light in terms of "noise".
ChatGPT can help us here:
Full Frame sensors typically have dimensions around 36mm x 24mm.
APS-C sensors vary slightly depending on the manufacturer, but a common size is around 22.3mm x 14.9mm.
Micro Four Thirds sensors have dimensions around 17.3mm x 13mm.
Let's calculate:
Camera 1 (Full Frame, 24 Megapixel):
Sensor area = 36mm * 24mm = 864mm²
Pixel per surface area = 24 MP / 864 mm² ≈ 0.0278 MP/mm²
Camera 2 (Full Frame, 45 Megapixel):
Sensor area = 36mm * 24mm = 864mm²
Pixel per surface area = 45 MP / 864 mm² ≈ 0.0521 MP/mm²
Camera 3 (APS-C Nikon, 24 Megapixel):
Sensor area = 22.3mm * 14.9mm ≈ 332.27mm²
Pixel per surface area = 24 MP / 332.27 mm² ≈ 0.0722 MP/mm²
Camera 4 (Micro Four Thirds, 20 Megapixel):
Sensor area = 17.3mm * 13mm ≈ 225.5mm²
Pixel per surface area = 20 MP / 225.5 mm² ≈ 0.0887 MP/mm²
Camera 5 (Full Frame, 60 Megapixel):
Sensor area = 36mm * 24mm = 864mm²
Pixel per surface area = 60 MP / 864 mm² ≈ 0.0694 MP/mm²
For low light it still makes sense to carry full frame but not for the same reasons as described in the video.
Nope, you got that wrong. The total area is what matters if you look at the image in the same size, NOT the area per pixel
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography this is confusing. If what you say is true Fabian, then a m43 camera with same lens as that on a FF camera - and settings at exactly the same aperture, shutter speed, ISO - would then appear darker on the m43 because the FF camera "collects more light". Is that actually true?
Nice one Fabian, full frame myself but just bought an APS-C camera for travel and difficult to get places. Definitely "Horses for courses" as we say here in the UK 👌
Thanks 😊
An interesting side note to this discussion is the weather sealing on the OM-1. It is best in class with an IP53 rating. Very useful as in UK it is constantly raining.
Yes, even though I never had any problems with my Canon gear in heavy rain
Mft f4 is f4 not f8 de Background blur is different but it stays a f4 same light gets into the cqmera like with a full frame
Yes, I never said anything different
Money matters a lot on these decisions. It’s just too difficult to say that one would be objectively better. Some type of image is easier to make with a 300mm cropped x2, and some you can make easier with 600mm on full frame. I feel however it is better to start with a crop sensor because getting the reach, multiple lenses, and video stabilization, is easier and cheaper. Then that gives an understanding of what features one really uses, and how much would it cost to get them in full frame.
Yes, I totally agree! But if you know that you might go full frame at a later point, I think APS-C makes more sense then MFT (since you can keep the lenses)
What speaks for MFT is, when you are making photos or videos in report situations. Then you need a wide angle for overview and a tele for close ups. Or natur, wide for landscape and tele for animals. But you have no time to change the lens. So on my MFT I have a 12-200 (24 to 400 in 35mm) and this lens is on my cam the whole time. This is why you see professional photgraphers carrying three camera bodies with different lenses around, because on Fullframe you will not get a good zoom lens which full fills the needs of a report photographer or filmer.
There literally is a 24-400mm lens from Nikon 😊
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography not the same thing: f4 to f8 and only 5.5 stabilisation. And that’s at a glance.
5:30 -- ummm.crop factor does change DOF...it's not just like cropping in post.
No, it doesn’t change DOF. Just try it yourself
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I'll have to try it sometime since the DOF calculators don't take into account cropping a full frame photo to match the framing.
It seems to me to be a very sincere and very fair approach on your part. Leaving aside this somewhat embarrassing issue of those who buy equipment to tell others that they have the best and are smarter, the M43 and especially OM System are obsessed with positioning their product for wildlife photos and I think that is just the weak point of the system.
Sensors with low resolution and problems managing high ISOs make the M43 an option that has its big problem. Added to the fact that in many cases the price is very high and the weight and volume is similar to that of larger formats. M43 only makes sense in nature when weight and volume is the priority and this is possible only with some lenses that meet the requirement of being bright and compact.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Hello, I shot full frame Sony Nikon canon However I have stumbled across a lot of videos talking about the om1 with the 150-400 f4.5 TC a lot of them are very convincing, especially with birds in flight, so mush so that even though I have all The full frame cameras that I already use and own. I have the om1 with several lens in my cart, But now after listening to you I am not sure I can pull the 15,000 trigger in my cart. I would love to see you do a side by side if possible, I am a new subscriber and really enjoy your channel, your fan from Georgia us thanks for your time.
I will do that if possible! So far I could not test the om1 & 150-400
I totally agree with you. I prefer FF , it’s more flexible system if you have 45 megapixel body - you can go to crop mode and have 20 megapixel and also you have FF. MFT is too limited. Lightweight combos also available in FF for example if you need lightweight lens in 600 mm range go with 600 mm pf . 300 mm f 4 mft lens is like 600 mm f 8 in FF. Pf lens will give you 2/3 stop advantage in background blur and ISO .Many people don’t want to say that when you multiplying crop factor you should multiply not only focal number but also f number.
Yes, I agree! The only downside in this example is the price (the Nikon 600/6.3 is not cheap)
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography also there is alternative 400 mm f4,5 - in crop mode you can get 600 mm or to use 1.4 teleconverter . But you said about it.
Depends mostly on the difference in dynamic range. Shade details will make a bigger difference.
Yes, dynamic range is another thing where full frame cameras are much better
Could you share more photos?
There are more on my website 😊
I think you got it wrong with the equivalent ISO. The ISO is proportional to the crop factor squared and not the crop factor. So ISO 3200 on APS-C is equivalent to 8200, and on micro four thirds it's equivalent to 12800.
Isn‘t that what I said? That MFT has roughly 1 stop worse high iso performance than aps-c and 2 stops compared to fullframe?
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography It's fine, you just said APS-C would be ISO 6400 instead of ISO 8200.
To make it more complicated: 7200 for Nikon/Sony APS-C
For now (as a beginner) I shoot canon APS-C, but I find that full frame might be the best option for me. Sure, a lot of those lenses might be huge compared to MFT's tiny ones, but camera brands (especially nikon) are bringing out reasonably lightweight lenses which still have a good aperature, such as the Nikkor Z 400mm f4.5.
Yes, I feel the same way
Perhaps one might say that there is an absolute advantage for full frame, when one deals with shy or dangerous wildlife, which allows you further distance to get the same image. Otherwise you can get the same result just by moving closer! My photography basically deals with man-made landscapes/cityscapes and details of buildings or perspectives. I don’t have that issue and therefore don’t have to lug around bags of lenses that need to be checked into baggage because of weight, or might even require a Sherpa to help, Right?
One thing so far into the video (7:00) that hasn’t been mentioned is the vast difference in cost of lenses for full frame, without commensurate, picture quality, (per the above comment) So unless money doesn’t matter… and then, if money matters, there is the heavy commitment one makes to a system could be nearly impossible to back out of! Many a Pro photographer RUclipsr have converted to MFT from FF, but only the professionals could take a deduction on the loss, so it would be important to let all of the amateurs know that full frame is really not meant for them!
thanks for your comment. I‘m not sure why you say that full frame has an advantage for shy wildlife. Usually that’s a reason why people choose MFT.
Also, I don’t think FF can not be used by amateurs. I know many non-professional photographers that happily use full frame because they prefer the image quality or image look
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Well according to most pundits of camera standards, a FF camera allows more light to reach the CCD by virtue of size. So to get the same picture, a MFT camera would have to get closer, potentially scaring off the shy or dangerous ones!!
I did not say that FF CANNOT be used by amateurs. I stated that because of FF's disadvantages of size/weight and cost, the MFT's tend to be favored by those who cannot take a deduction from their taxes as a result of purchasing expensive FF format equipment. As long as he/she has a strong back, this gives a cost advantage to the professional!!!
As for "image quality or look", beyond the theoretical or nefarious feelings often stated, I have yet to see a clear cut advantage, which could only manifest itself in large format printed photography with one standing in front of two images to compare differences, only discernible in museum settings, all but eclipsed in our digital world. In any case, Olympus/OM has overridden this disadvantage with their "instant multiple overlap shot" feature- I forget the official term- that more than make up for the smaller CCD.
I was not ruling anything out, merely suggesting where things were going as a result of all this bickering over the two formats. But from my vantage point, my observation is that the FF camp would not be so hot under the collar to address MFT's disadvantages, were they not feeling the heat from OM (and others), a company that hails from a culture where miniaturization is clearly an obsession that they accomplish without competition.
As the smallest 35mm SLR, they were in this game with the original OM-1 which was a development from the endoscopic technology OM had already developed better than any other competition. If MFT had nothing to offer better, the FF camp would have ignored them. Its entertaining to watch the unending struggle on-line and hear the same pros and cons repeatedly. For me, the balance is clearly in favor of one of them and now they have developed a crazy lens that can shoot hand-held astrophotography because they paid attention to the factors that matter, that their older versions could not address.
Thanks for the discussion.
I recently bought an Olympus Pen F and went on holidays to Japan with 3 very small lenses (among these, the very small 20mm f1.7 pancake). What a joy to gravel so light ! Way lighter than my Nikon d7200 and Sigma 18-35 f1.8. And the photos I took really are very nice imho.
Also, I'm experimenting with vintage lenses on the Pen F like some Helios lenses, or a Super Takumar, and I think these are great combos.
But if I want to make some more qualitative work, of course, the D7200 has a way better sensor, more dynamics and the Sigma 18-35 is a fantastic lens to go with.
Every system has its advantages.
I shoot a OM-1 mk2. I don't have a problem with the mathematical comparison you're laying out here. Its all true. But, I'm a hiker. I want to do a 10 mile hike and bring my camera. It's just not practical to shoot full frame in this scenario. While you may be sacrificing certain things with micro 4/3, it more than makes up for it with the size and weight. I shoot 20x more photos with my micro 4/3 setup than I did with my full frame. I'll sacrifice a little background blur to not have to lug a giant setup up a mountain.
I can understand that as well 😊
one of the biggest issues I see is that people compare sensor sizes versus comparing the whole systems. This faulty approach is not exclusive to this one decision matrix, but here it is greatly relevant. At the end of the day the m43 shooters are often delusional as hell (that is the system that I use nowadays) in their efforts to justify their choices, then at the same time the arguments about lager sensor delivering less noise, less dof etc - is of course true, but speak only about part of the equation, not about the usability and result of whole system . There's like a 100 reasons why one may individually prefer this or that system so boiling it all down to "it is more noisy and has more background in focus" is the most elementary and super noninformative way of dealing with the topic.
Also true 😊
I shoot micro 4/3, APS-C. and full-frame.
I also shoot compact digital cameras with a sensor size that is smaller than micro 4/3.
My favorites are the APS-C dSLR and mirrorless digital cameras.
Thanks for sharing
And to stir the Pot. What about something like 102MP 43.8 x 32.9 mm medium format sensor (Fujifilm GFX100S)?
It sounds amazing for landscapes! But not really suitable for wildlife I would say (also because of the lens lineup)
Do I read right, that Canon RF 600mm f4 costs 14.000€ where Olympus 300mm f4 is 3000€?
You get what you pay for 😊 Canon has an older EF 300/4 L IS lens that is around 1300€
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I would say you will get what you believe is the best. In case of Olympus I get 0.24x max magnification vs 0.17x on Canon (1.4m vs 2.5m minimum focusing distance), dualIS which is uncomparable with Canon, splashproof resistance, 1270g vs 2890g. And now even 1.4x teleconverter included. And on the 10m distance I get 0.13m DoF vs 0.06m on the Canon where you will most probably need to stop down a little. And yes, saved 11k I can use to go through the safari few times ...
Personal preference in the end. But how did you get these data for the canon lens? They are a bit off 😉
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography you see, indeed, local camera store has wrong data, nevertheless real data from canon website are even worse :D personal preference
Nice video but I don't really agree with the combo chosen for Micro four thirds. Why the olympus 40-150 f2.8 when there is the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8? It's about 400 grams lighter and a few hundred dollars cheaper at least. The weight savings would push the setup to under 1,000 grams.
In my opinion what FF stands out is not IQ as there're medium format MILCs on the market, but the versatility--you have better IQ than crop sensors, larger native lens selection than medium format, you have very fast sensors and slower but higher resolution sensors, it can fit in most use cases. But for people who have more extreme needs, that's where other formats for.
True, I would not like to use medium format cameras for bird photography!
I like apsc for wildlife. I don’t have the money for a 600mm f4. So I use a 200-600 5.6-6.3. Either way I’m going to need good light with the lens, so apsc gives me more pros than cons for what I do. Which is get extremely close and detailed shots of birds.
Enjoy!
I always carry a camera with me. And it‘s a MFT. Usually with a second lens, in a small sling-bag. We‘ll see if I can do that with a 35mm camera.
Get an a7C and you're even smaller and more light weight. AND full frame!
@ I don‘t think a A7C is smaller or lighter than a GM5 or even as a GX9. And Not much can beat the Lumix 42.5mm f 1.7 or the 35-100mm f4-5.6.
Ok, the A7C and the GX9 are almost same size and weight…just looked it up.
But then again, the GX9 has higher resolution EVF (and it‘s already bad) Display and better IBIS.
I used a canon 7d for a long time with a Sigma 150-600mm contemporary, I liked this combo for the reach, and the backgrounds are not to bad. When I considered upgrading, there were two main choices the R5, which has about the same pixel density, or the R7 for more pixels on the subject. I ended up with the R7, mainly because the R5 cost about as much as an R7 and a 100-500mm, so I almost have enough money to also get a new lens. But I'm waiting a year or two to see, if Canon will put out a lens that's more like my current one, or allow third parties to do so.
Have fun with the R7! Maybe Canon will indeed release an affordable 200-600mm one day
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Ha! They may someday release a 200-600 5.6-6.3, but "affordable"? (I enter into evidence the 100-500 4.5-7.1 for a little under three grand!) I wouldn't hold my breath! Best bet is they allow Sigma to make an RF 150-600!
There's a rumor about a 100-600mm rf lens, but the aperture would be like f/9, which is twice as dark as the sigma 150-600mm, I wouldn't really switch for that. I would like something affordable, but not f/9 kind of affordable.
Sigma is at the moment not allowed to make a RF150-600 😉 of course, nobody can sure what Canon will bring. But please stop comparing the RF100-500 to a Sigma 150-600 or Nikon 180-600. it’s a completely different tier of lens. It needs to be compared with the Nikon 100-400, which is actually more expensive than the Canon 100-500
I have the OM-1, Nikon Z8 and Canon R3 and if you asked me to choose only one I would have to toss a coin for either the nikon or canon but I think I would choose Nikon as Canon needs to release lenses that are affordable like nikon, but please note the OM-1 has features that full frame costing double the price can't touch and the OM-1 pro capture is the best there is, Nikon only 11mp jpeg only lol and the R3 isn't any better, Plus the OM-1 computational features are first class and all in RAW, But I can't keep 3 systems and actually I am waiting for canon R5 II to see what that will be like then I will make a decision on which system to keep.
I‘m also waiting for that camera 😊
I use the very small m43 lenses. The 14-140 Panasonic is my do it all lens. A couple of oly pro's for the image quality and also the Olympus 300 F4 with 2x TC.
I know there's equivalence and all that but when I look at other people's photos and look at the price and weight of other camera's and their lenses I just can't find a compelling reason to switch.
Everybody has their own preferences and priorities 😊
I don't think FF shooters are idiots. I have shot both formats and enjoyed both (Canon, Panasonic/Leica and more recently Olympus). Full frame is clearly more capable. If had the money and body (I'm 72 years old), I'd still be a FF shooter - Canon.Nikon or Sony are clearly more capable in terms of resolution, noise, dynamic range, bokeh and a certain IQ that (as a long time MFT shooter) is a hard to quantify - the Jis (just is?) that twitchers recognize. But, I continue to shoot MFT (Olympus OM1, 300 F4, 40-150 2.8 and 150-600). The reason is weight and value. Most hobbyists (especially wildlife shooters) just don't ahve the pockets that you do - nor the energy. Great channel, I continue to follow you, despite my $$
constraints!! Oh, and IS on Olympus is terrific - significantly better than my Canon 6D. Glass is also excellent and cheaper.
Thanks and enjoy
I am using OM-1 with Olympus 300 pro. It’s a great combo, especially for birding I think. I would love to have the 150-400, but it’s too expensive. One important thing to bear in mind is that OM-1 has a stacked sensor, which is a big advantage. I often combine hiking with birding, and this combination doesn’t weigh me down too much. From a quality perspective I am happy, and with Lightroom it is possible to reduce any noise to get good results. If I were to change, I would look into Nikon and then especially the Z8 with the 180-600 telephoto. This combo would be heavier though.
The Z8 and 180-600 is a very nice combo!
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Thanks, and thanks for a great channel!
Are those numbers true? Does 3200 iso on m4/3 look as god/bad as 12800 iso on a FF?
It’s a smaller sensor and need less light to get the same results!? 🤔
No, it captures less light. I tried it myself, it is pretty much 2 stops difference. So yes, a modern FF at 12‘800 looks comparable to MFT at 3200 ISO
Even a FF+150-600mm zoom could probably produce better results than a m43+300mm F4, that's quite clear, and would not be much more expensive, if not cheaper.
But I want something compact that can fit into my bag and not need a backpack, and I need more reach than a apsc+70-200mm, so for now m43 is the system to go, for me. R7+RF 100-400mm is also compact but the aperture is too small for that pixel density. Or maybe someday Sony releases a 100MP FF body than I could think of switch to that plus a 100-400mm GM lens, but I also doubt the burst speed of a 100MP camera.
I think for the moment there is definitely a speed/resolution trade-off. But I think we will see faster speeds and higher resolutions in the next years (even though I‘m really fine with 45MP, there is already a lot of options to crop)
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I agree that 45MP is really fine , for me the thing is that if I want same magnification as 100-400mm with a 20MP m43 sensor, I need maybe a 150-600mm with a 45MP FF sensor, and that wouldn't fit into my bag.
I think it's because I'm a more casual photographer, it's more like I'm taking photos while going outside and don't want too much weight and bulk and am willing to sacrifice some image quality, but for a professional like you the situation is vastly different.
hi Fabian
I think that the man/woman behind the camera makes the difference, not the censor or the brand. Let's stop with nonsense material discussions and go outside and take photos.👍❤️
Totally 😊
Thanks for a level-headed evaluation. It's unfortunate that some people view photography purchasing decisions as reflecting morality or intelligence.
Thanks
Actually I have heard intelegence question in FF / m44 scenario first time here …
It's been a year, but let me remind everyone that the paramount question here is *_where_* the photos will end up eventually. If less than a couple thousand people will see them, if they are not printed in a book or magazine, or enlarged and framed on the gallery wall for an exhibition, what's the use of all the FF perfectionism? When MFT already surpasses the boundaries of 24×36mm analogue era film by far. Think just what masterpieces have been taken in that format. Also, being less capable but more portable, MFT is a real challenge to learn, to do your best and practice hard to surpass the limitations of the format.
Agree with most of it however the Panasonic g9 is 897 better comparison to bring the price down. M43 always less money for same reach
Thanks! Yes, there are just some trade-offs in image quality and background blur
And always much more money for same level of background separation. And in most cases you simply can't get the shots because the necessary lens doesn't exist.
Great video! I have been using Nikon for decades, bu a couple of years ago I decided to shift to Olympus. I really like Olympus, but I cannot let go of Nikon, I love both the old DSLRs and the Z6. I have the Olympus OM-1, but grab a Nikon more and more. Just ordered the 180-600 Nikkor Z lens. I think I will have to keep two systems, then my mood will decide what camera I go with on the day.
Thanks for sharing your experiences! Are you also planning to get the Z8?
I think my budget is to stay with the Z6, mayby a Z6iii in the future 🙂@@FabianFoppNaturephotography
I think the advantages of different formats should be rationally utilized, so I use standard lenses for FF because they are more beneficial in low-light environments and are not too heavy. If I am traveling or hiking, or need different focal lengths at the same time, I will pick up the M4/3.
Sounds like a nice setup
APS-C + Speedbooster + 50mm F/1.8 lens is equivalent to like F/1.2-F/1.3 56.8mm full frame (canon) and it will perform equivalent if not better a very expensive full frame body like the R5 with the same lens in low light due to F/1.2 being so much brighter than F/1.8 and so much cheaper.
MFT will have it's advantages in nice daylighth situations for wildlife due to more reach. However I find the APS-C sensor size the best all rounder in both daylight and night time with a speedbooster. It's a much cheaper setup. I have a metabones 0.71 booster and with all my lenses (Sigma 150-600 C / Canon 70-300 F/4-5.6 IS 2 Nano USM / Canon EF 50mm F/1.8) they're all sharp at wide open and there's not much chromatic abberation or distortion and autofocus speed. I find no difference what so ever with the speedbooster attached or not. So I prefer APS-C for the best price/performance.
And If I some day get crazy enough for night time photography, I'd probably get a medium format camera rather than a full frame. And if I get crazy enough for more reach, I'd crop the image instead of getting a MFT. So there are little to no advantages over an MFT body in my opinion other than being cheaper and a bit lighter. But I'm super happy with my R7 so I'll probably not get a medium format or full frame body anytime soon and never a MFT body.
Enjoy the R7 😊
In the comparison the MFT 40-150mm f2.8 alllows a faster shutter speed which in the case of APSC or FF the ISO may have to be raised, resulting in less PQ. I know the Mft DOF is actually equi to the FF f5.6 at 300mm, the background blur is therefore less attractive. If one doesn't mind the higher f number (or even higher iso) and lesser PQ, he can use the Olympus 40-150mm f4-5.6. That has a ff reach of 300mm and weighs only 190g. A good second hand one can be found for around USD100 . For someone who is budget constrained but wanta to get started, there are lots of good alternatives. Smaller formats means less glass and so less heavy and less expensive, unfortunately that means less PQ too
It’s always about priorities and tradeoffs
What I want to see though is a direct comparison between say a 200mm on M43 versus a 200mm on FF but then cropped by half.
In terms of depth of field: no difference. I terms of image quality: it depends 😉
But I‘m not sure why this would be so relevant. If I need 400mm focal length I‘m not using a 200mm and cropping after
Worth pointing out that crop factor doesn't carry over to light capture. You can't just say a 300 f4 is the same as a 600 f8. It is in FoV/reach and DOF (due to being optically a 300), but in terms of light hitting the sensor it's still f4, so it'd be a 600mm f4 in that aspect. The inarguable better image quality you get with FF starts to decrease when you have to crank up the ISO to compensate for the difference in light coverage on the sensor/slower glass. Would it take you down to the OM-1? That depends, but it's possible. Does it matter with modern processing? Not really, but it wouldn't really matter anyway if you're using images for print or web galleries. One where you'd be far enough from the image, and the other where the image most likely would be compressed to the point of it being a non-factor.
Realistically the only reason it's getting easier to tell people looking into photography as a hobby that might include wildlife to maybe look at FF first is because you can pick up something like the A7Riv for sub 2k USD now that has enough resolution to basically be a high spec crop body with room to spare for a person to save money getting a zoom that tops out at 400 or 500 (to get more than the 600-750mm by the time you get to the ~20mp worth of resolution that the budget MFT route of a solid used G9 and Lumix 100-300mm ii for around 1000 USD) instead of paying the huge amount for the next bump in range. All while also being, well, an A7RIV when not in that niche situation.
For whatever the application, it really just comes down to what works best for the photographer. In my work where I travel around rural areas and small villages mostly in East/Southeast Asia looking for natural lifestyle portraits, my strongest tool is probably the Olympus 75mm f1.8 on my E-M5.iii. That combo lets me get an intimate shot with the 150mm field of view, while being small enough to not be a distraction. I have another body with a 20mm f1.4 to get wider (well, 40mm equiv is wide for me with how far back I'll be in a lot of situations, even with the 45mm f1.8 or f1.2 at 90mm equiv) shots I might otherwise miss (although my work/travel partner usually focuses more on the environmental portraits and wide shots). I've been asked to test a Z8 and 135mm Plena. That lasted maybe 30 minutes before I gave up because everyone around was staring at the foreigner with the big camera/lens. Not that it's impossible, I use my A9 together with compact Sigma primes to get some great shots without being a distraction. I've thought about just replacing my main bodies with the A7RIV/A9 combo (A9 serves me well, not paying to replace it) that gives me enough resolution to basically sit in APS-C crop range to get the range I want/need in the compact package of something like the Sigma 90mm f2.8 or similar and the Sigma 35mm f2 on the A9.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Since the crop sensor is smaller, it does indeed get less light even when using the same aperture. This is why MFT is about two stops worse in low light performance than full frame
Nice unbiased vid. I'm interested in how they stack up when you stop up on MF3 or APSC comparing to FF. For instance compare FF with 24mm F4 lens with APSC with 16mm 1.4 lens. Think just like you can compensate FF by using 600mm instead of 300mm, you should be able to compensate APSC by using f1.8 instead of f4 or something like that to let more light in comparatively and increase the bokah effect.
Yes, unfortunately these lenses often don’t exist (e.g. 300mm f/2 for MFT)
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography How about comparing FF with 24mm F4 vs APSC with 16mm F1.6? Shouldn't that be a fair comparison that exists at most zoom levels?
hello fabian would you be interested in having a discussion on stream yards ?
Never heard about it to be honest 🙈 What would be the idea?
For a correction.
There is no such format as m4/3 aka MFT.
That is the mount, aka "system".
The format name is "Four Thirds" aka 4/3 aka 4/3". And it has been so since the first 4/3 system camera, Olympus E-1 from 2003.
The sensor has always been same size, aka format is always been same. But the mount changed from 4/3 to m4/3. That was smaller in diameter and added two new digital pins for data. It is smaller version of the 4/3 mount, that is as well just a smaller version of the legendary OM mount.
Thanks for the clarification
I'm glad you did this comparison because I too came to realize that the arguments about cheaper on m43, particularly for wildlife, is not really the case. I rather pay for real focal length than "effective focal length".
Thanks! Yes, I feel the same
They both have advantages, It depends on your preference what is good or bad. So to me, the main advantage of FF (which I shot occassionally with the D800) is DOF and noise. I think with mFT AI should be able (I did not try or check it) to change the DOF and bokeh so it is more pleasing (although it rarely happens). Currently Panasonic and Olympus have also handheld hires mode. 100 MP on the Panny and 50 MP on the Oly. Panasonic has a subject motion correction that is not perfect, but very good. It won't work for action. So my two reasons to use FF are now being dealt with in part with especially the G9 Mark II. To me though when I shoot sports the Cam+ 100-400 PL lens is just such an enormous difference in weight, that FF is ou tof the question.
For others, it is different as we all are different. Nice comparison. Danke, thx!
Thanks!
Nobody seems to discuss if the different sensors are the same quality, have similar clarity etc. after all , it is the potential quality of the image which must vary according to the physical structure of the photoreceptor.
I‘m not sure I follow
The bigger sensor within the same tech generation will always have better image quality. If you care for lots of background blur, cropped sensors will never make sense: once you match the DOF look of FF, your cropped set up will probably be bigger, heavier and more expensive than the FF equivalent.
I don't care much for the background blur. I like F8 on FF. So I find the smaller MFT cameras and lenses very convinient. And image quality is good enough for most (if not all) real situations.
Absolutely!
I use OM-1 with 300 F4 + MC-14 all time long, never remote it.
Have fun with it then
Seeing this video it’s obvious your goal was to prove a point and you indeed presented a strong case. However the weight comparison I find to be unjust as you compare a 70-200 f 4 with a 140-150 f 2.8. I also think you should have been more transparent with the cost of FF super telephoto lenses as well as their size and weight. Finally as others have mentioned in the comments a camera like the OM-1 or the new Panasonic G9ll packs in a lot of useful features that are not there in any FF or APS-c bodies. And they do that at fraction of the price of a high end FF body. Money that can be put into travel and/or your lens collection. If it in the end comes down to pure image quality, dynamic range and ability to crop FF is better, especially with high MP sensors. For this reason I kept one FF body (Nikon Z7) and a couple of lenses when for my wildlife shooting switching to MFT.
Thanks for your comment. You definitely raised some fair points
What I figured out, it's not entirely the sensors fault. Given sensors from the same generation the low light performance is about the same, but it depends which lenses were used. If you have a 400 mm f4 ISO 1600 on FF you would need a 200 mm f2 ISO 400 on mft to get the same shot with equal depth of field, field of view and about the same performance, but if you only have a 200 mm f4 you will get the depth of field and performance of a 400 mm f8 at ISO 6400 lens on fullframe, which can be an advantage or a disadvantage depending what you want to achieve. From my understanding crop sensors get a bad rep, because people don't have the proper lenses for them, and the lenses aren't available, very expensive or impossible to make. Let's say you want the same field of view and same depth of field of a 50 mm f1.2 on FF on mtf, you would need a 25 mm f0.6 which would be expensive and almost impossible to manufacture (f0.5 is the physical limit for any lens). Most people don't have such lenses, and that's the reason people think their FF body has better low light capabilities as their crop body, because they put their 50 mm f1.8 on FF and see better results, that's because on the crop body it wasn't actually a 50 mm f1.8, it was a behaving like a 100 mm f3.6 on FF wide open, on the crop body they let's say took pictures at 35mm f1.4 ISO 1600 on APS-C for example, on the FF this would be equivalent to 50 mm f2.2 ISO 4000, now they put the 50 mm 1.4 on FF, now they can open the aperture about 1 stop, and take pictures at 50 mm 1.4 ISO 2000. In conclusion if you want to get the best results on a crop body you need very good very fast glass, which is mostly unobtainable, and if available more expensive, which defeats the purpose of having a crop body if you just want to safe money. Shooting on crop sensor can be an advantage if you want more depth of field 200 mm f2.8 on mtf would give you the same depth of field as a 400 mm f5.6 on FF, so you can achieve more depth of field with a smaller lens. In most cases less depth of field is beneficial so most people will get FF, because to achieve the same look on a crop body it would require special lenses which are mostly not available.
It gets more obvious, when we consider an even smaller sensor, like the 1/28" sensor of an iPhone 15 pro. The main camera is a 24 mm FF equivalent f1.8 lens, there is the first problem: manufacturers call out the equivalent focal length but not the equivalent aperture. With a crop factor of about 3.5 the iPhone has a 7 mm f1.8 which is equivalent to a 24 mm f6.3. When we set a full frame camera with a 24 mm lens to f6.3 we get the same field of view and the same depth of field as the iPhone. We also have to adjust for exposure: if we have ISO 1600 on the iPhone, we would need ISO 19600 on the FF camera given the same shutter speed. There we see that the best we can do with the iPhone is a shot at f6.3 and ISO 19600 on full frame, but with the FF camera we can open the aperture depending which lens we have to 1.6 for example which would give us 4 stops extra for exposure, we now could either increase the shutter speed by 4 stops, or lower the ISO 4 stops, which will give us ISO 1225, or divide the 4 stops differently. We can't do that with the iPhone, because we would need a 7 mm f0.45 to archive the same with our FF camera at f1.6, f0.5 is the physical limit for any lens, so this lens would be impossible to manufacture, the practical limit is more like f0.7.
In conclusion crop sensors appear to have bad light capabilities, but the truth is that the smaller sensor would require lenses that are unobtainable, to get around that the only thing we can do is to increase the focal length, and if we do that we also need to increase the sensor size accordingly. If you want to get the same shot (same depth of field, same field of view) sensor size doesn't matter so much but if you want any shot (aperture wide open, maximum shutter speed, lowest ISO possible) the FF camera will always be better, because you can utilise the higher focal length to achieve a larger aperture and because of that better exposure settings.
Yes, I agree. However, the problem is that the „right“ lenses just don’t exist for MFT. For example, to have something similar as my 600/4, I would need a 300/2. that doesn’t exist. And to replace my 100-300/2.8 I would need a 50-200/1.4, which also doesn’t exist. Therefore, full frame is the way to go for me
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I agree, the lenses for crop sensor cameras are just not available, there are no "professional" lenses. But what I saw crop sensors can be an advantage when filming video. On FF you basically can't shoot at wider aperture than f2.8 because it's too hard to focus at wider apertures. Then it makes sense shooting at mft, since you can shoot at f1.4 and get the same depth of field like on FF at 2.8. That means that you can use smaller lenses and smaller gear, you also get more in focus. Here is a good video explaining it:ruclips.net/video/YuCFchltKmc/видео.htmlsi=39IgDeva5z67crv6
I have Sony fullframe and Olympus M4/3 and 9 of 20 times I some how always grab the Olympus when I go out.
Thanks for sharing
So you go with Sony the majority of the time.
nikon D750 105mm macro lens love it also 80/200mm tel.
Nice, enjoy
Thank you for a lovely comparison Fabian. I can't help but imagine that AI will be able to create background blur from photos. It's easy enough to just pick the background with masks. I use light room and you can sort of soften the background up (with Texture and Clarity sliders) but it's not all that great. Does anyone have any thoughts on AI as a tool to create background blur? There certainly would be a market out there for it. Just as there was a market for noise reduction, and sharpening.
This might be. However, in competitions etc. it is usually not allowed to blur the background in post (I prefer to get the look right in camera)
Well-reasoned.
Thanks
Great points Fabian! although the R7 @2900 vs OM-1 @3300 there is absolutely no way I would chose the R7 the OM-1 kills the R7 in so many ways. I had waited a long time for a good crop stacked pro Canon but for a long time they seem to have missed a great opportunity. Canon sensor dev is too slow. You can also get great grey market offers on the feature rich Fuji apsc XH2s. I think I might even prefer the XH2s over the R5 as it's stacked and now they have a good zoom. For my full frame I'm going with the Nikon Z8, Nikon better lenses and the sensor is much more modern stacked and BSI..
Have you had many rolling shutter issues with the R5? I am returning from a 3 weeks trip with 60‘000 photos taken and even for hummingbirds in flight the R5 was doing very well with the electronic shutter. I just think the Fuji and Canon AF systems are on another level.
But yes, the Z8 is a very nice camera, I really enjoyed using it
Sensor size has NO effect in light gathering, it is why hand held light meters don't have film/sensor size switches on them. The ONLY thing sensor size does is image crop of a (same) scene, the field of view is where the crop math comes in, not light gathering.
What I think you are trying to say is that pixel density on these sensors will effect your noise in higher ISOs because like in a MFT sensor you are working with a lot less pixels in a pixel area that will obviously become more visible in a lower light image.
The 20MP MFT sensor is about the same pixel density as a FF 61MP sensor but in the FF sensor the total amount of those same size pixels making the same image, the noise is less noticeable in a final standard size image. The noise it is there but because there are more of those same size pixels you don't notice it as much as you do in an image from a MFT sensor with the same pixel pitch.... It is NOT about the amount of light coming in, Light is constant and a lot has to do with how the processor translates that light but it is the same. Just because the sensor is smaller doesn't mean the light is less, the smaller sensor is only "seeing" less of the scene (Field of View) yet same light values nonetheless, same amount of light is hitting each of those pixels, it's just that one sensor is cropping half or more of those pixels and has to still make the same size image/print than the FF camera but with more pixels, thus more resolution with the same exposure.
No, it’s not pixel density. Sensor size has no effect on the light density, hence the same exposure. But the total amount of light is different. Simple physics 😉
Thanks, Artsilva, At last, someone who knows what they are talking about. If we have two sensors of the same size with the same sized pixels, but one has 5 pixels and other 500, which would generate more electricity?
@@patrickhopkinson1851 Micro-electronics is for those electro engineers to ask, however I would bet that the more photo sites you have on the sensor, the more electronic receptors you have and I assume that it is more spliced up data being transferred and bottlenecked to the light-to-data translator and processor which would in general theory take up more power. I would think it would be the same electricity coming in but dissected and reformed in the processor would be the slight difference in power.
@@artsilva there are so many factors that influence the behaviour of photo electric cells that it is hard to make generalisations about their performance. Some are more efficient at generating electricity from photons than others are and the amount of electricity generated varies in response to different photon frequencies. Some of this is also the subject of academic debate. There seems to be a dispute, for example, over the relationship between cell size and photon gathering: some say the larger the better, some (like Prof Rob Newman) say it makes no difference. I suppose it’s a matter of everything being equal but then nothing ever is. Then it’s complicated further by the effects of all the other components which use the electricity that the cells generate. Light gathering, however, remains solely the function of the objective lens (which strangely, camera people never seem to comment on). Unlike in many optical systems, in photography there is often too much light and it has to be reduced by baffling (f-stops) and limited exposure (shutter speed) and then by sensitivity or gain moderation (ISO). The other thing is that the focal length of the objective lens is one of the determinants of image magnification, the other is the focal length of the eyepiece. Cameras don’t really have eye pieces but I suppose the equivalent is the last lens which focuses the light on the sensor or film. The longer the objective lens focal length and the shorter the “eye piece” focal length, the greater the magnification. It is this system, not the sensor, that determines magnification. In photography terms I suppose that this is referred to as field of view. It is only tangentially related to sensor size.
@@patrickhopkinson1851 Right, it is why cropped sensors are called just that, "cropped" sensors in relation to 35mm film/sensor plane format, because JUST the field of view is narrowed and nothing about light transmissions should even be confused because per unit input is all constant.
FF to me is not what it used to be. For film it was the smallest viable format to get decent quality out of, half frame and 110 were just too small to deliver anything more than a snapshot for memory sake. Digital sensors can resolve so much more detail per area and that makes smaller sensors viable and to me the equivalent to 35mm film and pushes FF sensors to the place medium format had in the film area. A choice for people with the budget and willingness to carry more than necessary to get the job done in order to get that extra bit of resolution. For me the choice is clear and I rather have an enjoyable time in the field, even if that means having to give up a bit of quality overhead. For others that may not be the case and I can understand that. While editing and looking at the files on a monitor it is neat to be able to zoom in to crazy amounts, but I just don't see that translate into the finished print on my wall in a way that outweighs the actual weight of the gear. It helps that I never have been a super shallow depth of field shooter, so I don't miss that, but I can again understand that this can be a valid reason to choose a bigger sensor. For my landscapes I even benefit from being able to get everything in focus without having to close up too much.
One thing I have to vehemently disagree on tho is that bigger sensors capture more light. They don't. You still get the same amount of light hitting the sensor, just focussed on a smaller area. At least if you use lenses optimized for the respective sensor size.
Hi! Yes, image quality has improved significantly in all formats. But my statement with the light is still correct. The light per are remains the same, hence the exposure stays. But since the larger sensor captures more light, you get better noise performance. Otherwise an „optimized“ lens would result in a brighter image than a „non-optimized“ lens and we see that this is not the case
Just stick to what you love most, you'll be fine.
Yes, I think it’s just good to know the limitations and benefits of all options
I'd say FF collects 2,5 times more light than aps-c. So when we are comparing m43 to Canon aps-c we end up with much smaller difference than between aps-c and FF
Here it depends a bit if we compare Canon or Nikon/Sony APS-C. The Canon APS-C Sensors are smaller than the competition
Nice 'food for thought' .
I'm currently a user of both m43 Olympus om5 and FF nikon d610 cameras, and I have to say that an f1.8 either FF or m43 lens will for our purposes receive the same light, ie require you to use the same ISO, shutter speed and aperture to achieve very similar exposures. For example try using the m43 17mm f1.8 vs an equivalent FF 35mm f1. 8. Light is just collected and measured on a specific unit of surface so in theory it is obvious that a lens with a wider opening receives more light overall. Please look into this with real life examples, and pleeeeease prove me wrong. Then I will feel better on spending so much money on FF. Please make sure that the sensors are of a similar generation.
Thanks. Yes, I did some tests. You are correct that the exposure will stay the same because the amount of light per area stays the same. However, the total amount of light on the full frame sensor is more. I can maybe try to show it in more detail in another video
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I think this also has to do with the larger size sensor pixels. Bigger pixels are generally better in collecting light (not to mention dynamic range).
The light gathering of the sensor is of no consequence. It is the ability of the pixel sensor to gather light. For a given resolution, the smaller the sensor, the smaller the pixel sensor. That is the issue.
I think the way Canon does it is the way to go. You have a set of lenses. And you attach either a FF or CF body to them depending on what you want to do. That implies you go CF when you need reach and the light is not completely terrible. Otherwise go FF.
And then you add a few CF lenses for compact use.
One thing I wish they would do more on is the use of speedboosters on CF. It makes a 500mm F4 into a 350mm F2.8….
But why not buy a 400/2.8 in the first place then? Or use a FF camera?
There will always be those that spend more time arguing the strengths of their choice of system than actually shooting images, of course. Yes, each has its own advantages and, ultimately, it boils down to what the photographer seeks from their images. I have shot Olympus most of my life and Oly is what my dad shot professionally. I sometimes envy the low-light performance of full-frame but with the post-processing options available today, it really isn't an issue anymore. The end results for well-shot images printed and viewed at normal distances are sufficiently similar that it really doesn't make any difference, period. Sure, there will always be exceptions and those that leave nose-prints on prints... In which case they probably lack social graces in the first place, eh? lol Those that spend more time "policing" the photography forums than actually shooting imaginative images are the sheep of the community in the first place and at the end of the day, I do my own thing anyway.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Good points and it truly boils down to personal preference. My MFT gear isn't the lightest for packing into remote locations but it's my system of choice and my chosen "tool" for creativity, no different than those that choose other systems. I love the processing power in my E-M1X and I carry both my wildlife and landscape glass with me at the same time, so I'd never argue that my gear is lighter. lol In the end, it's my old back that must cope and it's still worthwhile for me.
Happy to hear that you enjoy your equipment
I've got to compromise because cost is an issue.
Also because when i do bird photography it usually includes a lot of walking.
Ive seen some incredible full frame photos. You can see fish in a birds mouth while it's flying and the detail is incredible. But that's like 15k worth of gear that weighs god knows how much 😀
I currently have the G9 100-400 combo and it's pretty good.
Outside of expensive full frame gear I've yet to see photos better than the ones I've seen produced with the Olympus 300mm pro. Ok they might be equal but i haven't seen better.
The Canon R7 and 800mm combo is one in interested in for those nice days.
You just have to decide what your budget and weight limit is and what light you will usually be getting.
Yes, I totally agree with your last sentence
You are confused, my friend. The full frame will capture a total of 4x as much light as a micro 4/3 but the sensor size is 4x bigger. So, that light is spread out over an area that is 4x bigger. Therefore, light per unit area of the sensor is the same. That is my understanding.
Yes, light per area is the same (hence the same exposure settings). But the image quality depends on the total light gathered 😊
If you were to look at the cropped area of the full frame in the centre of the image, the quantity of light gathered will be the same as the micro 4/3. So, the centre of the image is the same quality? Why when the area of sensor of the micro 4/3 and full frame gather the same amount of light will the quality be better on full frame?
@@youphototubeObviously if you’re cropping a FF you’re essentially getting a MFT. The difference is if you use the bigger area. For example, if the area of the sensor used for the picture is twice as big, you’ll get twice the light.
But the point is that you normally DON‘T crop the fullframe. And then you have much better quality
No the full frame captures more light. 200 mm 2.8 on mft is equivalent to 400 mm 5.6, but if you have 400 mm f4 on FF you have one stop more light, the same with ISO, the video creator got it wrong, ISO is proportional to the crop factor squared not the crop factor, so if you shoot at ISO 200 on FF, you need ISO 800 on mtf, you lost 2 stops of light, so in total you lost 3 stops of light, and image quality is dependent on how much light you have. There are no free lunches with this, there is always a compromise, the bigger and better the sensor and the better and faster your glass is, the better will the image quality be.