We learned that you trust in same settings yielding in same results, like a squirrel rabies survivor with brain damage. The sony image is so much more contrasty and overexposed compared to olympus that it's impossible to learn anything :D This is what we subscribe for!
I see it too, but I think he's talking a bit about blown-out highlights and solid black shadows on the Sony at low ISO levels compared to the Olympus. I agree with him on the low level ISO shots. The Olympus is useable due to a flatter profile and presence of less contrast while maintaining great color balance. Of course this is NOT because of micro four-thirds, it's obvious full frame let's more light in while maintaining great bokah, it's more to do with Olympus's superior handling of image quality at low ISO levels. I do not believe he was being sarcastic about that part.
Coming from full frame to M43 I used this analogy: My friend's 8mpg Ford F550 is much more useful in hauling things than my 40 mpg Nissan sedan but I only need a truck maybe once a year. I own the Nissan.
Why use the flat profile on the Olympus?Given correct exposure and white balance, the natural profile looks very nice without color grading. Would have been a better comparison to the Sony.
Can confirm the Nikon Z6 at 51200 barely breaks a sweat. Back in the olden days I had a D700, you pushed that thing anywhere near even 6400 and you were lucky to get a photo out of it.
I think the test was not accurate. I owned the olympus EM5 mark III and had to sell as I couldn't film anything indoors. Now moved to the Nikon Z6 II and is so much better.
Well, the Sony looked damn fab to me across the entire ISO range. Maybe some noise would be seen if the clips were blown up to IMAX cinema dimensions 💁🏻♂️
Look more closely... if you keep an eye at the background corner above the eagle statue you can see how blown out the image is where you cant even see the lines that form the border of the wall and ceiling but you can definitely see a lot more of it on the micro 4/3. The exposure for the Sony at those lower ISO's is not great.
Interesting but not new to me. Look despite what the clickbait RUclips channels say an Olympus will outperform most full frame systems for 90% of the time at roughly half the cost and if you've got cash to burn then skip to investing in a decent editing PC and monitor.
The fact that you have to use a full frame lens and booster proves a pitfall of the micro four thirds system. I use the same gear you do. lol. Low light performance of a full frame sony is absolutely untouchable by any micro four thirds hardware.
Mercury Retrograde started a few days ago. That means none of your Tech works properly because all the gremlins are partying. And I have no idea what I just watched. -Because your message couldn't penetrate all the fog (half of which is in my own brain). There is no hope. This is a month to chill out and recharge. But thanks for the video! It's good to at least have company while nothing makes sense. You're the best, dude!
Hi I use both system. To match the setting, it isn't the aperture and shutter speed that is the problem, but to considering the base iso. Sony base is 100, Olympus base is 200. If the SS and aperture were the same on both camera, but the Olympus is exposed correctly at ISO 800, to get the same exposure I should be using ISO 400 for the Sony.
Man! I saw u at the bridge crossing the DVP at riverside... wanted to say something but just had a dumbfounded look on my face as I recognized u... u stared at me with a look of “why is he looking at me so weird” hahaha! Maybe next time I’ll say what’s up!
So I guess that the takeaway is that the Sony A7S III is really bad in low-light, also by far the best in low light. But seriously, it was killing the Micro 4/3 cameras (as it should), and it was brighter to boot (meaning that you could drop it by 1.3 stops and have even less noise, and it would outperform the Olympus by an even wider margin. Of course, as I mentioned, this is to be expected and not a surprise at all (except to those who thought that the Sony full frame would lose in low light to Micro 4/3 cameras).
I think that the Olympus looked soft in every comparison. The Sony is sharper and quicker to focus. I prefer the Sony - you can do a lot more with the raw data.
The Sony camera was made so you can vlog while in the pitch black tornado shelter behind your house at night as a tornado destroys your house and camera hoard. Didn't really live up to expectations though.
Need the same colour profile and exposure compensation on both to make a fair comparison. Sony A7S iii wins easy, bigger pixels capture more light. All 4k video should use 12mp sensors. I want a ZV-1S Sony!
Yeah the Sony crushes that Olympus, but also consider the cost difference. If budget is not an issue, then EVERYONE should utilize Sony mirrorless, but I think that's where MFT cameras come in, they're "usually" cheaper and more compact. This saves money and space in your bag, but at a cost of deeper DOF and ISO dependency leading to more noise. In everyway full-frame is better, but we need to consider why micro four-thirds exists. This might get some triggered, but MFT is not usually meant for professional services, with the rare exception to the Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera 4k being used professionally in film making.
When testing cameras in low light, testers (even best one) just compare perfomance on the same ISO, shutter speed, F-number. But. 4/3 cameras and Fullframe will never have the same settings in the same light condition.
It ultimately doesn't have to do with iso differences between 4/3's and full frame. Iso on Digital cameras is manufacturer dependent not sensor. Because it is up to interpretation.
It's an unfair comparison. The 4/3 is a much bigger sensor. Full frame is 3/3, right. 3 thirds, one full one. But the Orympus and Fanaponic have four thirds. FOUR! Dammit. Thats one more thirds than the full frame. (Three thirds)
Your Sony footage was 1.3 stops brighter than the Olympus and it showed in the video. The advantage is that you don't have to be at as high of an ISO as the Olympus to get the same exposure and because of that you will get cleaner files. The only times the noise was really evident (watching in 1080 on RUclips) was at the super high ISOs in your bathroom. Everything looked clean in the room to me side by side. Man, those Panasonic colors were terrible though.
On a serious note, I did think the Sony did better at high isos, but overall the Olympus still looked more than fine for youtube hobo quality. Now, back to laughter.
Z6 is extremely clean all the way to 8000, and still very manageable beyond.. maybe to 128K (can't remember exactly where it falls apart, as I rarely have the need to go beyond 16000). Z6 used is sub 1K. If I weren't poor AF I would send you mine.
Well that was 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back! What did we learn? The Sony is cleaner at all ISO settings and seems to meter the scene brighter (or one of the cameras ISO or metering is off somewhat).
Also iso on all cameras is basically on a sliding scale. They are not equal and some perform better in 1/3, 1/2 or full stops. Perfect example of this is the D3s which performed better at full stops and was pointless to use at 1/3 or 1/2 stops
I bought the Sony a7IV for exactly this reason. A7IV downsamples from 7k and is better in low light in the ranges most people would need it. A7iii is too grainy
Nice, early to a vid for once, btw, you're my favourite YT cam guy. I do NOT have the dosh to buy or try all this stuff but your humour is fkn tops so I keep coming back!
Well since you are ragging on the A7SIII, how about a show on all the disappointments of the camera. Photo mode: will not autofocus with shutter timer active. Time lapse yes, focus stacking no. Video mode: Auto ISO must be re-activated after every take. Active stab maybe great with a small 35mm, but put a big lens on and its shaky. And wtf is Picture Profile vs Creative Look? On, and Imaging Edge Phone app won't connect any more.
Hi! What Do You Recommend For Travel Photography/Videography and family Stuff (I mostly shoot Small Clips, and take snapshots)…I am Currently Debating Between The Nikon Z50 (With 16-50/50-250, and a 35mm f1.8 With The FTZ adapter) And M6ii (15-45, 55-250, and a 32mm f1.4). Almost EveryOne Is Recommending the Canon, But Seeing The Real Word Reviews Z50 Looks So much sharper And Cleaner, But The Canon Has Better AF (At least On Paper) What Do You Recommend?
@@damiensantillan6125 yeah it's a 2x crop factor I wouldn't call that annoying. A 1.67x is annoying. Multiplying by two is quite easy. 12mm=24mm 17mm=35mm 25mm=50mm etc.
@@Thegbiggamerz math wise not annoying but practically? Yes, very annoying. Ultra Wide fast glass that doesn’t distort is much more expensive than fast 35’s and 50’s
Agreed man! Also consider the cost difference. You have to ask yourself, is it worth more than $2000? That may be around the cost difference between a Sony A7S III with an equivalent lens to the Olympus M1 MkIII. The lens looked like an Olympus 12mm f2.0 or 17mm f1.8 prime. An equivalent Sony lens would cost far more and the overall cost difference might be higher than $2000. Not had for the cost difference. Would it be as big of a difference in IQ performance if lighting was abundant and he was outside? I bet not. You want Sony if you are filming at night or for poorly lit stills shots. In film, it's okay to have ISO at lowest setting and have an underexposed scene (within reason), blowing highlights out is unacceptable. Usually opposite in still photography, where overexposure is okay in RAW and workable, you just don't want solid black shadows, because if you have to lift the shadows you'll introduce more unnecessary noise versus dropping highlights in an overexposed shot. [Apologize if you already know this, this is for others who read it and wonder why] Sony still wins, but Sony is doing something funky to the highlights and contrast at low-level ISO for sure. Odd
Really!? Can you link the test or video? Makes sense, due to physics, MFT will never be able to gather more light than a FF camera, but the ISO performance and stabilization was that good!? How does it compare to the GH5S?
Maybe I’m nutty, but I like the Sony MUCH better. The Oly is dark and soft and the DoF seems compressed. I mean MFT should have that effect, I guess. Query: are you using -7 Detail on the Sony boy, or running it at default?
The A7Siii is a strange camera, each profile has two native ISO and everything in between kinda look like crap ... so you basically have many different native ISO spread across multiple profile, plus you also have extended ISO and 1 stop above base is okay too. Because of the unpredictable nature of vlogging, the a7siii is not that good for that use case.
FF: F2.8 and M43: F2.8 are not the same. F stop isn't even accurate in terms of the light that is getting to the camera's sensor, that's why T values are created in terms of lenses.
Toneh also changes with sensor size. 20 mm f2 is not equivalent to 12mm f2. More like 12mm f1.2. Then it would be a better comparison. Even ISO should be different for an equivalent comparison.
f1.8 on 1 inch sensor, beats all the APSC + kit lenses, for half the price. I just hope one day Sony makes a ZV-1S version with 12mp instead of 20mp sensor to improve pixel size like the A7S iii.
You lied when you said you don't have another full frame camera to compare the Sony to. We all know you bought a Panasonic S5 from Gerald Undone for one dollar.
I'm not greedy, I didn't even browse his deals. Super generous of him to do that, I didn't want to go steal someone's dream camera when I already have way too much gear lol.
The Native ISO is different in different Cameras. That said, the Cameras are NOT using the same settings. The sensor generation and technology is also a very important factor. M43 sensors are older. The next generation from Lumix and OMmmmm Cameras will bring good news I’m sure. But FF and m43 are different animals anyway. Compare the systems is pointless. The prices are also very different.
All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com/shop/vegetablepolice
Man please test the "Steadxp" on some cheap "ibis"less camera
This video will help many young filmmakers for years to come. You demonstrated exactly how NOT to test and compare cameras. Thank you!
The amount of user error in this video is glorious.
The amount of objective science in this video is overwhelming.
Eat your heart out Gerald Undone.
We learned that you trust in same settings yielding in same results, like a squirrel rabies survivor with brain damage. The sony image is so much more contrasty and overexposed compared to olympus that it's impossible to learn anything :D
This is what we subscribe for!
Well the noise it's visible on the Olympus on ISO 800 above that the Sony destroys it as expected. Not sure if he's sarcastic or what.
I see it too, but I think he's talking a bit about blown-out highlights and solid black shadows on the Sony at low ISO levels compared to the Olympus. I agree with him on the low level ISO shots. The Olympus is useable due to a flatter profile and presence of less contrast while maintaining great color balance. Of course this is NOT because of micro four-thirds, it's obvious full frame let's more light in while maintaining great bokah, it's more to do with Olympus's superior handling of image quality at low ISO levels. I do not believe he was being sarcastic about that part.
@@MattJett I mean... do you watch the video on a potato? The sony barely has some noise on ISO6400 and the Olympus is awfully noisy.
@@MattJett the contrast does not tell anything about the sensor performance, that's just a color profile
@@MattJett probably you watch the video in 480p, watch it on 4K, and cry how bad the olypus is
I watch you more than I watch Peter McKinnon. Lol. Like I don’t even hesitate to click on your new videos.
O I hesitate all right, it's just that in the end I can't stop myself.
McKinnon sucks
Coming from full frame to M43 I used this analogy: My friend's 8mpg Ford F550 is much more useful in hauling things than my 40 mpg Nissan sedan but I only need a truck maybe once a year. I own the Nissan.
Dude. The Sony is awesome .. can’t believe how good it is.
With full frame you can See if someone is a lizard, so its a big difference.
Gotta love when he does tests to prove something and the complete opposite happens lol
At this point this is just a parody channel, and I love it
Sony is only noisy on slog3. Try PP OFF, and stay on standard, all ISOs are sooo clean. Sony has great in camera processing,
Woah the Sony is unbelievable, watched in 4k, the noise is much lower, almost non existent. The noise pattern is dense and very small.
4K is lizzzzzard technology, you outed yourself! ;)
I dunno man....I'm watching on a 4k tv and the Sony is noticably cleaner at all isos!
Probably a Sony tv
@@3rdshiftphilosopher232 Samsung.
Same here and I’m watching on a Phillips.
Guess he has everything backwards intentionally.
Half way through you finally got the exposure correct on the Sony 😅😅😅😅
I think I watch your videos just for the irony you put into them 😅
Why use the flat profile on the Olympus?Given correct exposure and white balance, the natural profile looks very nice without color grading. Would have been a better comparison to the Sony.
Can confirm the Nikon Z6 at 51200 barely breaks a sweat. Back in the olden days I had a D700, you pushed that thing anywhere near even 6400 and you were lucky to get a photo out of it.
I think the test was not accurate. I owned the olympus EM5 mark III and had to sell as I couldn't film anything indoors. Now moved to the Nikon Z6 II and is so much better.
Once again the Olympus colors make your skin look so much better
Well, the Sony looked damn fab to me across the entire ISO range. Maybe some noise would be seen if the clips were blown up to IMAX cinema dimensions 💁🏻♂️
Look more closely... if you keep an eye at the background corner above the eagle statue you can see how blown out the image is where you cant even see the lines that form the border of the wall and ceiling but you can definitely see a lot more of it on the micro 4/3. The exposure for the Sony at those lower ISO's is not great.
Burning highlights on the Sony, as if the dynamic range wasn't enough for his room.
Interesting but not new to me. Look despite what the clickbait RUclips channels say an Olympus will outperform most full frame systems for 90% of the time at roughly half the cost and if you've got cash to burn then skip to investing in a decent editing PC and monitor.
The Olympus did really well in my opinion. With my Fuji X-H1(that has phenomenal video quality) a little bit of noticeable grain kicks in at ISO 800.
Dangerously close to 100k subs. This channel is about to explode.
Regards from Stockholm.
Have a GH5. For low light senarios, I use a Metabones 0.64 with an AF Nikkor f1.4D 50mm lens.
No problems with lowlight
The fact that you have to use a full frame lens and booster proves a pitfall of the micro four thirds system. I use the same gear you do. lol. Low light performance of a full frame sony is absolutely untouchable by any micro four thirds hardware.
@@stevey500 And...
@@stevey500 Not if you use equivalent aperture to get the same toneh - M4/3 is actually better there.
I just love watching video guys bobbing their heads back and forth like chickens to test autofocus.
Mercury Retrograde started a few days ago. That means none of your Tech works properly because all the gremlins are partying.
And I have no idea what I just watched. -Because your message couldn't penetrate all the fog (half of which is in my own brain).
There is no hope. This is a month to chill out and recharge. But thanks for the video! It's good to at least have company while nothing makes sense. You're the best, dude!
I think the aperture correction between Full Frame and m4/3 has to be done.
Hi I use both system. To match the setting, it isn't the aperture and shutter speed that is the problem, but to considering the base iso. Sony base is 100, Olympus base is 200.
If the SS and aperture were the same on both camera, but the Olympus is exposed correctly at ISO 800, to get the same exposure I should be using ISO 400 for the Sony.
Man! I saw u at the bridge crossing the DVP at riverside... wanted to say something but just had a dumbfounded look on my face as I recognized u... u stared at me with a look of “why is he looking at me so weird” hahaha! Maybe next time I’ll say what’s up!
That's the only thing I prefer in bigger sensors, better ISO performance (usually)
Not if you use equivalent aperture to get the same toneh - M4/3 is actually better there.
So I guess that the takeaway is that the Sony A7S III is really bad in low-light, also by far the best in low light. But seriously, it was killing the Micro 4/3 cameras (as it should), and it was brighter to boot (meaning that you could drop it by 1.3 stops and have even less noise, and it would outperform the Olympus by an even wider margin. Of course, as I mentioned, this is to be expected and not a surprise at all (except to those who thought that the Sony full frame would lose in low light to Micro 4/3 cameras).
Didn't he say that the Sony put an automatic + 3 stops on and that he wouldn't mess with the Oly auto settings?
I think that the Olympus looked soft in every comparison. The Sony is sharper and quicker to focus. I prefer the Sony - you can do a lot more with the raw data.
i prefer the sony as well
The Sony camera was made so you can vlog while in the pitch black tornado shelter behind your house at night as a tornado destroys your house and camera hoard. Didn't really live up to expectations though.
Need the same colour profile and exposure compensation on both to make a fair comparison. Sony A7S iii wins easy, bigger pixels capture more light. All 4k video should use 12mp sensors. I want a ZV-1S Sony!
Yeah the Sony crushes that Olympus, but also consider the cost difference. If budget is not an issue, then EVERYONE should utilize Sony mirrorless, but I think that's where MFT cameras come in, they're "usually" cheaper and more compact. This saves money and space in your bag, but at a cost of deeper DOF and ISO dependency leading to more noise. In everyway full-frame is better, but we need to consider why micro four-thirds exists. This might get some triggered, but MFT is not usually meant for professional services, with the rare exception to the Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera 4k being used professionally in film making.
CC @ it's finest - nothing learned, watched anyway. I don't even shoot video...and I still watch
Backlitten.
THE most important test of them all.👍
When testing cameras in low light, testers (even best one) just compare perfomance on the same ISO, shutter speed, F-number. But. 4/3 cameras and Fullframe will never have the same settings in the same light condition.
It ultimately doesn't have to do with iso differences between 4/3's and full frame.
Iso on Digital cameras is manufacturer dependent not sensor. Because it is up to interpretation.
It's an unfair comparison. The 4/3 is a much bigger sensor. Full frame is 3/3, right. 3 thirds, one full one. But the Orympus and Fanaponic have four thirds. FOUR! Dammit. Thats one more thirds than the full frame. (Three thirds)
@@mgd60d13 😂
@@mgd60d13 🤣
Toneh has some thoughts about ISO equivalency across different camera models
and light transmission across lenses
And color profiles
Your Sony footage was 1.3 stops brighter than the Olympus and it showed in the video. The advantage is that you don't have to be at as high of an ISO as the Olympus to get the same exposure and because of that you will get cleaner files. The only times the noise was really evident (watching in 1080 on RUclips) was at the super high ISOs in your bathroom. Everything looked clean in the room to me side by side. Man, those Panasonic colors were terrible though.
On a serious note, I did think the Sony did better at high isos, but overall the Olympus still looked more than fine for youtube hobo quality. Now, back to laughter.
Man you are about to hit 100k. Thats fucking great.
The most amazing Toneh balls I've ever seen! LOL!
yeah, Olympus is better. I owned an A6400 and (still own) an EM10/3. The Olympus ran circles around the Sony in low light conditions.
Love your videos man, you are the best; you are exposing the dirty lies of the photo industry for what they are.
If you want and can pay for an expensive camera then go ahead. Mortals should keep their money and purchase Micro 4/3
bro Micro 4/3 is too expensive, especially the fast equivalent glass.
Canon RP is cheaper than most M43.
I love Olympus, I buy with my heart!
thank you! i now now i am going to get a full frame camera for its better low light performance
I've learned something - I can't see any picture quality difference berween modern cameras!
I feel like both Gerald Undone and Phillip Bloom are watching this video wondering "How have I failed my boy?" LOL As always, a fun time.
Z6 is extremely clean all the way to 8000, and still very manageable beyond.. maybe to 128K (can't remember exactly where it falls apart, as I rarely have the need to go beyond 16000). Z6 used is sub 1K. If I weren't poor AF I would send you mine.
Finally quality content!
Well that was 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back! What did we learn? The Sony is cleaner at all ISO settings and seems to meter the scene brighter (or one of the cameras ISO or metering is off somewhat).
I’m not really upset as a M4/3 user… I will use the daytime to get a decent video image, the rest of sony ff you can lock in to the bathroom. no hate
Also iso on all cameras is basically on a sliding scale. They are not equal and some perform better in 1/3, 1/2 or full stops.
Perfect example of this is the D3s which performed better at full stops and was pointless to use at 1/3 or 1/2 stops
I love how what you are saying is opposite of what is happening lol
The best bathroom vlogging camera lens combo to date. A7SIII Sony 20mm f1.8G
I’m no expert, but the Sony looks pretty good to me…just sayin’.😁
It's Slog where the problems show up.
Agreed…
The Sony is over exposed from the get go. Why the +1.3 ev to start?
I bought the Sony a7IV for exactly this reason. A7IV downsamples from 7k and is better in low light in the ranges most people would need it. A7iii is too grainy
Nice, early to a vid for once, btw, you're my favourite YT cam guy.
I do NOT have the dosh to buy or try all this stuff but your humour is fkn tops so I keep coming back!
It’s working. Keep going
The color science on the Sony is not acceptable in my opinion.
Well since you are ragging on the A7SIII, how about a show on all the disappointments of the camera. Photo mode: will not autofocus with shutter timer active. Time lapse yes, focus stacking no. Video mode: Auto ISO must be re-activated after every take. Active stab maybe great with a small 35mm, but put a big lens on and its shaky. And wtf is Picture Profile vs Creative Look? On, and Imaging Edge Phone app won't connect any more.
Hi! What Do You Recommend For Travel Photography/Videography and family Stuff (I mostly shoot Small Clips, and take snapshots)…I am Currently Debating Between The Nikon Z50 (With 16-50/50-250, and a 35mm f1.8 With The FTZ adapter) And M6ii (15-45, 55-250, and a 32mm f1.4). Almost EveryOne Is Recommending the Canon, But Seeing The Real Word Reviews Z50 Looks So much sharper And Cleaner, But The Canon Has Better AF (At least On Paper) What Do You Recommend?
Any Micro4/3 haters after this: RIP
Micro four third is still micro four third..
Bad low light..
Annoying crop factor..
Poor DOF..
@@overdubtutorial1817 how is it an annoying crop factor? & DOF isn't bad. Low Light is soo bad though
@@Thegbiggamerz my nifty 50 is a nifty 100
@@damiensantillan6125 yeah it's a 2x crop factor I wouldn't call that annoying. A 1.67x is annoying. Multiplying by two is quite easy. 12mm=24mm 17mm=35mm 25mm=50mm etc.
@@Thegbiggamerz math wise not annoying but practically? Yes, very annoying. Ultra Wide fast glass that doesn’t distort is much more expensive than fast 35’s and 50’s
The A7SIII obviously wins but tbh the m43 cameras doesn't really look that bad. But the Sony highlights look a bit blown out.
Agreed man! Also consider the cost difference. You have to ask yourself, is it worth more than $2000? That may be around the cost difference between a Sony A7S III with an equivalent lens to the Olympus M1 MkIII. The lens looked like an Olympus 12mm f2.0 or 17mm f1.8 prime. An equivalent Sony lens would cost far more and the overall cost difference might be higher than $2000. Not had for the cost difference. Would it be as big of a difference in IQ performance if lighting was abundant and he was outside? I bet not. You want Sony if you are filming at night or for poorly lit stills shots. In film, it's okay to have ISO at lowest setting and have an underexposed scene (within reason), blowing highlights out is unacceptable. Usually opposite in still photography, where overexposure is okay in RAW and workable, you just don't want solid black shadows, because if you have to lift the shadows you'll introduce more unnecessary noise versus dropping highlights in an overexposed shot.
[Apologize if you already know this, this is for others who read it and wonder why]
Sony still wins, but Sony is doing something funky to the highlights and contrast at low-level ISO for sure. Odd
@Kasey, did you get the video samples swapped or did Sony kill? Lol
I laughed my ass when he almost smacked the Olympus 😂😂😂
Lesson: If you are vlogging on a camera other than Sony A7SIII, turn your lights on.
Olympus looks better 🤔
Apparently from a video I've seen. The s1h out performed the a7siii in lowlight . But couldn't get as bright as it
Yep and the S1H also outperform a gimbal in stabilization. It outperform my nervous system and my wallet too
Really!? Can you link the test or video? Makes sense, due to physics, MFT will never be able to gather more light than a FF camera, but the ISO performance and stabilization was that good!? How does it compare to the GH5S?
@@MattJett Dustin Armstrong I think, s1h vs a7siii
Maybe I’m nutty, but I like the Sony MUCH better. The Oly is dark and soft and the DoF seems compressed. I mean MFT should have that effect, I guess. Query: are you using -7 Detail on the Sony boy, or running it at default?
The A7Siii is a strange camera, each profile has two native ISO and everything in between kinda look like crap ... so you basically have many different native ISO spread across multiple profile, plus you also have extended ISO and 1 stop above base is okay too. Because of the unpredictable nature of vlogging, the a7siii is not that good for that use case.
When he said Herpies is a myth,
My lips felt that...
-WAIT A MINUTE! O.o
> Claim!
> 10 seconds later
> Debunk your own claim
FF: F2.8 and M43: F2.8 are not the same.
F stop isn't even accurate in terms of the light that is getting to the camera's sensor, that's why T values are created in terms of lenses.
It's incredible how easily he proves himself wrong hahahah
Toneh also changes with sensor size. 20 mm f2 is not equivalent to 12mm f2. More like 12mm f1.2. Then it would be a better comparison. Even ISO should be different for an equivalent comparison.
Watching this video on a phone all iso look usable
Sony looked cleaner the whole way through
Sony sharpness come from the in camera sharpening. Sony is know at this.
Hey man I need your advice on how to make a short film cinematic with Fujifilm xt200 (lense 15mm-45mm)?
What's the lens light transfer rating for each?
Part of why I decided on the ZV1 is that it's suppose to be good in low light.
f1.8 on 1 inch sensor, beats all the APSC + kit lenses, for half the price. I just hope one day Sony makes a ZV-1S version with 12mp instead of 20mp sensor to improve pixel size like the A7S iii.
ZV1 is good in low light with the custom Sony low light profile that make art made on his RUclips channel. Basically eliminates noise completely
Wow
Woo boo!
maniac.
don't ever change.
Get a Ninja V and shoot the Sony in RAW.
You'll see how terrible Sony's shadow noise is before built-in noise reduction.
You lied when you said you don't have another full frame camera to compare the Sony to. We all know you bought a Panasonic S5 from Gerald Undone for one dollar.
I'm not greedy, I didn't even browse his deals. Super generous of him to do that, I didn't want to go steal someone's dream camera when I already have way too much gear lol.
GH5s Beats all with low light
This was an important test.
Sony's require an ND filter in low light, I just leave the lens cap on indoors for proper exposure when in Canada.
“ I turned Suicide into a buisness.” That is a statement that is sooo very very wrong. In sooo many many ways.
RUclips compression hides a lot of noise either way.
So glad I found you and your chainloose stuff! I bought a GoPro 'cause you said so.
On ISO 2500 the worms are kinda visible on the olympus and i wont even ask why its black vs blue :D
Panasonic G9 or gh6 is gh6 iso any beter 3200 and 6400 looking to do as Digital SLR looks great at them iso
If all science was this conclusive there would already be cities on Mars.
The Native ISO is different in different Cameras. That said, the Cameras are NOT using the same settings. The sensor generation and technology is also a very important factor. M43 sensors are older. The next generation from Lumix and OMmmmm Cameras will bring good news I’m sure. But FF and m43 are different animals anyway. Compare the systems is pointless. The prices are also very different.
So close to 100K subs. Just a bit more toneh and we’re there...
Is it the metering modes? The exposure difference is massive. Micro 4 turds falling apart is the shiznit...
After this video Kasey goes back to the ZV-1
My chakra.........................has heart burn........................should I be concerned?...............other than that, love the vid