As a photographer for more than 50 years, 12+ of those working professionally in military, industrial, biodmedical and security industries plus a little commercial work, I got a great laugh out of this. So glad you did it and subscribed so I don't miss your next test. When I shoot, my thoughts are on what will be my final or primary medium for sharing. If it is for social media, any decent cell phone camera is good enough. If it is for larger print or or news publication display, even a small 1" sensor can produce amazing results in decent light. Good photographers shoot for their primary outcome for expression. Not for pixel peeping. And the truth is that in normal situations, almost any camera with a decent lens and proper exposure and photographic vision can be a great shot. Sensor and lens don't really matter that much. It is when you push the extremes, that you begin to see the difference, and even there, it is not as extreme as many people think. Of course I grew up with photography when there was no auto-focus, no auto exposure, no affordable fast lenses (F3.5 was considered fast). I also shot with everything from 8X10 inch sheet film to 35mm but mostly medium format. It seems that in today's world it is about 'extreme' bragging rights more than actual quality, usability or output. I can't imagine being a sports photographer today and have to sit down and screen literally thousands of perfectly exposed and perfectly in focus images, none of which stand out. I'm retired now. I shoot for the joy of it and my own personal satisfaction. I probably get more interesting photos with my camera phone, simply because that is the camera I always have with me. Yet when I do have my good gear and get out with it, I am shooting not for social media or bragging rights but for something that is special or extraordinary to me. Something for print. We live in a world of social media gear heads, and very few "real" photographers. Then again, the real photographers are probably out with their cameras creating a few great images, not sitting at a computer most of the time arguing gear. In my pro years, my greatest photo accomplishment was as a Navy photographer on the weekend on-call duty. A recon aircraft was inbound with shots of a new Russian ship. Shots were taken from a bad angle, at sunset using a 5 inch film nose camera. By the time the film arrived, I and the intel mate had 4 hours to process, the film and deliver 50 sets of finished photos. He selected a series of 5 shots from one angle that would be made into a composite image. Each Frame was unevenly exposed so in printing I had to hand dodge and burn every image for every frame and we had to produce 50 copies of each frame, or a total of 250 prints, each hand dodged and burned, all in under 4 hours (and that included film processing time.). We did it. We got an award for it. No one outside of military intel or command would ever see it, but it was an amazing feat of skill to do it. I closed the lab at 5:30 AM. The intel guy still had 30 minutes to make 50 copies of his analysis to package with the prints and a plane was waiting to take it all to the "big guys" in Washington and all the relative units around the world. I left a message for the lab chief and told him I had been up all night and needed some sleep so couldn't make it in at 8 AM. He sent me a message back and said that was fine. To report at Noon instead. Real photography is about getting the job done, no matter the job or the conditions. Gear does not matter. Only final results matter relative to the end use for the images. I worked in technical fields as a military, industrial, biomedical and security photographer for more than 12 years. The only argument about gear was "can it get the job done". And yes, even in those fields there is a need for "creative" photography. Have never had any paying client ask me what gear I used. They only care about final results. The argument about gear is really more about the final use and outcome. Not about pixels, format or brand.
what camera would be the best at taking pictures of the woods lots of trees annd suck to get best image of say a squirrel on a limb or what ever happens to be in shot not really focusing on anything just the woods then examining picture
@@AshishKumar-kv4hr of course some lenses are sharper than others. especially kit lenses are obviously just basic quality in a small package. but if you read david robinsons comment like I did, you will come to the conclusion that its mostly about getting the work done. i also own expensive sony GM lenses and some Sigma Art ones, and I too see a difference on my monitor. But no matter how much i will spend on gear, its about getting the work done in the end. Most professional video work or film is done at f4 or even slower, makes me rethink all the money I spent on f1.4 primes.
You should also do a test to see whether it takes the same amount of time for a Porsche 911 and a Ford 150 to travel from A to B, when both vehicles are traveling at 60mph.
Anybody who claims they can tell the difference between low res images from different sized sensors shot at f8 and cropped to look similar is on the wrong end of the Dunning-Kruger curve.
What is the point of such a test? If I wanted photos at such a low resolution then I could stick to my 3.2 MP digital camera from the year 2000. I got the cheapest camera with the sensor I wanted. The A5100 gives me very similar results to what I expect from my film days except I get way better dynamic range. No phone camera is close enough to be remotely interesting by comparison, plus that phone would cost a lot more. Without RAW and that dynamic range then my whole style of shooting goes out the window. I like non-staged situations and being able to get highlights and shadow detail on a sunny day without fill lights or bounce cards is an amazing freedom. No phone gives me the digital darkroom flexibility that I need and when cropping, you need 3-4 times more resolution in the small sensor in order to match the actual visible resolution of the larger sensor.
The “special look” of medium format exists because you get the FOV of a wider lens while retaining the compression/perspective of a larger focal length. It’s exactly what the “Brenizer Method” is based on.
Exactly, when you shoot with a 90mm lens on a 6x9, and it has the same FOV as a 35mm lens on full frame, but has the shallow dof of a 90mm lens at close range.... that's the magic....don't get me started on 4x5 or 8x10
Alex Vozniuc we get this. Fstoppers has done this before. The tiny detail that counts here is 'the equivalent field of view'. I guess it all depends on the dof you are after. I own a Canon 85mm F1.2 and f1.2 is unuable for portraits, the dof is too tight. This video is for entertainment.
Mate! you definitely have to read out some of your favourite and most heated comments on your next video. That would be gold. Also looking forward to the results, probably will not change my mind on the cameras I use, but it will make me more informed on the advise I give.
Lots of comments, no controversy. Everyone agrees that at very low resolutions / everything in focus, it is hard to tell the difference, but that there is an obvious difference in every other situation.
Why not medium format camera straps too? They have a little something special about them. I can't quite put my finger on it, but they just look a little better.
It's almost as if the photographer's art, the composition, the lighting and the concept of the photo are more important than the canera that records the final image... this is heresy. Premium-quality WUM, I approve
sure, but just try to take images in lowlight with a kit lens and a camera that has bad ISO performance. Not saying good gear makes someone instantly a pro but even a pro can't capture certain images in certain conditions with any gear.
xcy-7 lol most pros would use either strobes or Speedlights, not only to improve the low light situation but also to make their images better than an amateur’s.
@@thomasjames7644 yeah, if you can carry around strobes or have reflective surfaces for the speedlight. Neither of them would work for, for example, a military combat photographer. You also couldn't really carry around a strobe if you're photographing a social event where the subjects are moving around. A speedlight could be useless depending on the space. Both the speedlight and the strobe light could also potentially ruin the look and feel of the shot since it introduces light that naturally is not present in the scene.
Lots of comments, no controversy. Everyone agrees that at very low resolutions / everything in focus it is hard to tell the difference but that there is an obvious difference in every other situation.
The sensor size and results are irrelevant. Everyone knows photography is obsessing about the specs of the latest gear, pulling the trigger, taking it out a few times and then leaving it to gather dust in a drawer while we use our phones. Thought we were all clear on this.
Jacob Edmonds are there any ? I am being serious. Today I was shooting kids rugby. I had the only camera there - yes really. This was in an affluent suburb, and no one was using their expensive phones, because they cannot shoot sports.
@@nordic5490 I agree with you. I don't think this test is specifically designed for sports though. I really don't think an iPhone or pixel could really beat a mirror less or full frame camera especially when it comes to anything with a telephoto or fast shutter speed but might be interesting to see the test results though. Or even chuck it on a drone and test wide angle footage.
For video yes, for stills even though the resolution might match a modern ILC the handling wont. I can shoot monster fish in my community tank a hell of a lot easier with my fuji than I can with my zenfone.
In your future videos be sure to test ISO on darker photos when comparing size of sensors. This will make a really good video.... I can already tell a difference on the guys shirt with grain showing worse on one and not the full frame.... This is how you can tell in major way which camera made which pic...
@@jscul That wouldn’t prove anything though. He explains that. That’s like saying he should’ve shot wildlife so APSC looks best because of the crop factor.
@@jscul That is exactly the point. The differences are widely discussed and widely known. He even mentions the differences here. This is showing how any format can reproduce almost the same image. And how hard they can be to tell apart.
@@jscul That’s a reason he explained. And clearly it’s important to you. But there’s hundreds of videos explaining the pros and cons already. He mentioned those points but this video isn’t about those differences.
@@jscul But this discussion is prepositioned on a scenario he wasn’t addressing. Those issues are discussed a thousand times already. Everyone knows a full frame sensor is better for night sky photography. Not everyone knows you can create almost identical shots with different sensors and focal lengths.
@@jscul But that information is widely known and accepted. Why must every comparison go into detail about something most people know? Night sky photography is a very small segment of the photography community and that is not what this piece is about. Personally, I shoot a lot of wildlife and he didn’t go into much detail about the advantages a crop sensor has in that regard, but that’s not what this is about. Must every comparison relate directly to your own interest? I would’ve thought not. But you clearly feel it must.
APSC is ok. I'd rather use full frame because of the better dynamic range and low noise, with just a slight weight and size increase. It definitely makes a difference in regards to performance and image quality in many situations I find myself in.
@@MusicByAngels more likely your FF camera will have lower dynamic range than APS-C in most often used ISO range 200 - 3200 go here: www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm and compare Fuji X-pro3 with FF camera you planning to buy
Lots of comments, no controversy that I can find. Everyone agrees that at very low resolutions / everything in focus, it is hard to tell the difference, but that there is an obvious difference in every other situation.
At first, I was about to hate on this video but your point is very true imo. The main thing people say is great about full frame is the shallow depth of field. 🤷🏿♂️ Depth of field is overrated especially if you shoot studio work or fashion (f8 or f11 in almost every studio setting). Also when I shoot events I usually shoot at F4 or 5.6 anyway... I went from aps-c (Nikon d500) to full frame a7r3... I made the switch because I wanted eye af,a smaller lighter body and more megapixels. Overall, any picture I take with the a7r3, I could have taken with the d500. I find the high iso performance to be similar between the 2. Honestly the best thing i get from the a7r3 is crop-ability and crop mode. I get the high mp without the drawbacks of horrible high iso performance. I don't really notice much difference in the depth of field primarily because I really don't shoot wide open anymore. I will say the main thing I miss about my d500 was the combo with the sigma 50-100 1.8. I feel like that lens was irreplaceable because of what it offered in terms of low light (not depth of field).
:36 Ehh, f-stop is actually a mathematical function relating to the amount of light the aperture will let through, it doesn't say anything about the _actual_ amount of light transmitted, partly why cinema uses t-stop; the exposure accuracy is far more important than the precise depth of field (yeah, many other reason too). There is also quite a bit to be said about depth of sharpness, and usability. Let's say you want the background out of focus, and just your subject sharp nose to back of head (10 inches) -full body, a shot like that is a million times easier with medium format due to the sensor size, for 35mm you're at 200mm or more for that (not wasting time finding a DoF calculator), some people can shoot like that, but most (subjects) can't. I guess bit-depth shouldn't be addressed, but it actually should, because if the images are blown up, the small format will fall apart way faster than the high bit depth MF file.
No, f-stop is a measurement of the physical dimensions of the aperture in relation to the focal length of the lens. 50mm lens with a 50mm aperture= f1 lens. 50mm lens with a 25mm aperture= f2 lens, etc. The f stop is nothing but a ratio. Light that passes through is measured in T stops.
I have to say the images don't look exactly the same. The differences can be seen in the background mostly. In the last comparison, when you said they looked exact, my discerning eyes picked up a background that was more blown out in one photo (GFX 50R) than in the other. That, to me, suggested that the one that was not blown out had a wider dynamic range in terms of exposure. The skin tone was also slightly different. The GFX 50R had slightly more orange skin tone - but only very slightly. I notice those details because I'm a videographer and I color grade all my footage before posting to the public. That brings up another point. In videography, at least, full frame is assumed to be better because theoretically it has higher dynamic range of exposure and color. The Canon EOS R, for instance, is better than the Canon 80D in many respects; but the main difference is that it's full frame. But then you look at the Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera (BMPCC) and you realize the actual image quality is probably just as good as a full frame...The BMPCC is a Micro 4/3 sensor, and as compared to the Canon EOS R, it's arguably better. But as we all know, the true quality comes not in the camera but in the artist behind the camera....And in the color grading in post.
Since you brought up the 80D v R, would you recommend an upgrade from the 80D to say the R6, by passing the R? Or are APS-C DSLR's still relevant in 2021?
@@sonicvboom They're still relevant. But if you're upgrading, go to the R6 or R5. Keep in mind that the R6/R5 are not ideal for video due to overheating issues, so perhaps look into a different camera if you're doing a lot of video, like Sony a7s iii.
I like shooting full frame simply because it gives me the best lens selection and I don't have to mess around with equivalent focal lengths or apertures. That, alone, is worth it to me. I recently sold my Fujifilm X-H1 and now primarily use a Nikon DSLR. I can't tell you how nice it was to go from "Okay, this is my 23mm f1.4, which is basically my fast-35... except it's not particularly fast since it is actually equivalent to a 35mm f2... damn, is there a lens that give me an equivalent of f1.4 on aps-c? Oh... nothing with autofocus..." to suddenly saying "This is my fast-35" (the end, no further consideration needed).
I went the opposite way. I have had a full frame Nikon DSLR for years and when it was time to upgrade, I went to a X-H1. Now I still use my D800 for studio work, but generally I am shooting at f/10 and I prefer using a OVF with flash but I rarely shoot wide open and the Fujifilm 90mm f/2 gives me all the depth of field I really need out door. Even with my Nikkor 105mm f/1.4, I can barely remember using the lens wide open.
what makes an image good (at least for what I do- fashion and portraits) in order of most important to least important … the photographer, the model, the clothes / styling, the light, the location, story, luck, everyone in a good mood, lens, body (sensor size). Given this- the size of a sensor is very rarely the thing that makes or breaks a shot. So many other factors are so much more important- and even if you wanted to focus entirely on technicals- a well lit small sensor camera can often out resolve a poorly lit large sensor camera. So really it all just depends- for more photographers- full frame makes the most sense b/c its portable enough, fast enough etc to be convenient- and its large enough of a sensor to give you the creative choice to not always have to light your situation perfectly. Other photographers who always light their shots with strobes or flash might be much better served with APS-C or M43 if they offer a price point or technology set that adds value to the shooter like a 4k60 hybrid video fundtion or a flippy screen to help compose images at low and high angles- etc
I love this!!! Keep making these types of videos. The people who rage can't be true photographers. You are right when you say you can take great shots with any camera.
You can take great shots with any camera but ... come on ... I can take better shots on my full frame camera than if I used my daughter's Barbie doll camera from Walmart.
I agree, I use a D5300 and am constantly thinking about when I should upgrade but I love the photos I get and I couldn't see a better camera making much of a difference to the work I produce.
I believe all current camera and most older cameras take great pictures. I nobody ever says how good there pictures from there a77ii are. Maby its just me but my a77ii had a lot of problem with coler noise and soft images especially in lower light. I was shooting everything in jpeg didnt try proccesing raw images maby that would make a diffrence.
It's a nice romantic idea, but it's also not true: you just can't replicate the look of a FF 35mm 1.4 on a MFT system, unless someone comes out with a 17mm 0.7 lens. On Super-FF (APS-C), you'd need a 24mm 1.0. Yeah, I can already hear people say that such a shallow DOF is cheap gimmickry, but those people are almost always using crazy telephoto ranges for their portraits. A FF 35mm 1.4 will give less bokeh and therefore more context in an environmental portrait, than let's say MFT tele-portrait lenses.
Online, I wouldn't expect much of a difference. I think it's print where the larger format cameras shine. There's more detail, more depth to a medium or large format print that you won't get - or that I haven't seen -- in a full frame or smaller sensor. Oh, great! You're going to do a print test! Can't wait for that one!
In addition to larger format sensor size, even more megapixel count will yield very different results when it comes down to larger *prints* . Any one that disagrees have never hosted/ been a photo art gallery before.
Love it. The range of negative reactions and arguments are just misdirected fear of failure, feeling they chose the wrong gear. P.S. Im happily shooting and selling Crop 12MP.
Well done, from someone who owns micro four thirds, apsc and full frame. Processing photographs is an art in itself and makes a big difference. I will be looking at the rest of your posts about this. Thanks for the work you put in. I am someone who has no loyalty to brands or sensor size.
It's true that any camera can be matched to any other camera in a test like you've done. However, that doesn't take into account how people actually use a camera. E.g put a 50mm f1.8 on a full frame and then use the same on a M4/3 camera and you'll find with the M4/3 you'll have to get further back to get the same framing. Then communicating with models etc gets more difficult. There is so many factors to be considered in the real world that don't have anything to do with how people test. Also, I'm sure you'll get to it, but dynamic range, low light performance etc are big things for me, and many others so thats why I continue to use full frame cameras (I have no brand loyalty but currently use Sony).
I had a mate years ago, I went around to his place and he showed me a Hasselblad. It was the first time I had ever seen a camera like that before. I couldn't tell you what model it was but it's one of the ones where you have to look at the camera from above to see the subject in front of you. He demonstrated how take a photo and he took a photo of his kitchen. Mind you it was just an average kitchen, the lighting was normal daylight, nothing special and yet it was one of the most magical photos I had ever seen. I thought how can this camera make an ordinary kitchen look so extraordinary? You can tell me that under the same conditions you can make images mostly look the same and from this video I believe you however from what I understand now, my mate had a medium format camera and the images from that are significantly more beautiful than on any other camera I have ever seen or used since. So I would say without rigging things to all be matching and just taking photos right out of the box so to speak the medium format images win every time for me.
Great piece. Look, camera nerdism was severe back when I shot professionally in the 70's and 80's. Anyone remember D76? A lot of your skill was just focused on knowing a useable image would come back from the lab. Every modern camera (and phone) will out perform film. I made 4 ft prints in my bathtub, exposing them with my Durst enlarger turned on its side. The prints were from 400 ASA film that I pushed. The grain was the size of hailstones. They were more powerful, emotive, evocative than most of the super-sharp, 14 levels of dynamic range pictures I see out there now. We have it too good.
This video should never be hated, it saves clueless photographers from spending the extra to upgrade their already great gears that arent really unnecessary just to satisfy their GAS cravings. We should be thanking the author for the all effort he put in this vid to educate us, allowing us to make a more rational decision in investing in any equipment.
Lee, you are brilliant. This needed to be done to get rid of the fallacy. It has never been about the gear, it’s about the person behind the gear and the sheer skill that that person possesses to get the job done. What Medium format provide is a huge margin in crop ability during the editing process, especially in commercial photography. Everyone doesn’t need Medium format or even Full Frame and for those who do you will know if you need it and can justify it and Lee is angering people who are gear centric and brand loyal and for that I applaud him. Lee has one goal here and that is to make folks think and realize why we all love photography in the first place, which has nothing to do with full frame, Crop or Medium Format.
Medium format look comes from the contrast between shooting a short telephoto lens and obtaining with it a wider field of view. For instant, a “normal” focal length for a mamiya RZ67 is a 110mm lens. It gives a field of view similar to a 50mm in full frame. Also, when framing the subject with this lens, we are really close to the subject, so in medium format we are shooting short telephotos and probably closer to the subject, increasing the blurry background. I apreciate the test, but it is insuficient to judge by that picture in the video. Note: the bigger the sensor, the more acentuated is the efect. The fujo sensor is only 1.7 times biger than full frame. The mamiya Rz67 (analog) is 4 times bigger than full frame and the “look” is easy to notice.
"Do Larger Sensors Produce ----Different---- Looking Images? I stood in one spot and shot my buddy Keith Bradshaw with 4 different cameras with 4 different sized sensors. To keep the field of view the same, I used a 50mm "equivalent" lens on each camera. ----To keep the depth of field the same, I changed the aperture as well.----" This is so funny... I'ts the same like a comparison between Ferrari Enzo and Toyota Prius when both drove a 60MPH... CLICKBAIT for me
No, you're missing the point. He wanted to see if consumers would be able to detect inherent "advantages" of larger sensor cameras such as dynamic range and resolution. The fact that you cannot tell the difference proves the test successful in that the sensor size doesn't matter
@@epicengines2565 You have to tell this to the photographers, who shooting with Hasselblad. They missing the point and they should use a GH5 instead. Sensor doesen't matter. Oh what I love RUclips and pointless comparisons like this one, "controversial" content for making many. I can take identical picture using a smartphone and FF camera. I can prove that sensors doesen't matter. I can prove that focal lenght doesen't matter. I can prove that aperture doesen't matter. I can prove all of these, but I need to prepare my shots before and after if they need to looks similar... If I just grab a two cameras with different sensors and take a pictures, you see this instantly because all of this things matter. Everything depend about subject and what you need or expect.
@@shuttermaniac sorry but this helped me realized just how stupidly biased most photographers are to full frame for such a little thing that wont in a million years make you a good photographer, by a looong shot, specially in making a good image. this confuses a ton of people and unsure of themselves if wether their camera is good enough... ofc taking out of the way *super* cheap options that can do decent at times. y'know, more quality options like a canon m50/100 or a sony rx vii, an A6100/A6400, or any in that range of cameras with smaller sensors, that yet posses high photographical performance and versatility without spending thousands and carrying around bigger/heavier gear... specially if you put on good glass though, that makes a huge difference as many people should know.
Preach! The other big issue you should touch on is that full frame is actually the cheapest way to get shallow dof. To get the equivalent of a 50mm f1.8 on a 35mm sensor you need a 35mm f1.2 on APS-C ($$) or a roughly 70mm f2.4 on MF ($$$).
F1.4 on DX not F1.2. Also you picked the cheapest and only cheap lens for FF. 50mm F1.8 ff is $100 for Nikon AF-D lens. Pick something like 24mm F1.8 and the lens costs are likely a lot closer.
@@HassanDibani F1.8 would be F1.3 on DX, not the F1.2 the other person said.( I said f1.4 but I was off 1/4 stop ) T stops vary from lens to lens, F Stop is the image standard and is close enough. Circle of light is obviously larger for larger glass but the circle of light for a m4/3 is smaller than for a FF so total light is sensor size dependent.
SO, so glad you did this comparison. I had this heated discussion with a snob of a photographer, who basically considered shooting with anything else than a Hasselblad a waste of time, because the image quality is of the charts in comparison to other formats. I only pointed out, that it really doesn't matter, if you know what are you doing you will produce quality images regardless of the used format. Well, we never spoke since...
I love this. Too often you see RUclipsrs selling the idea that crop sensors change the depth of field when you use the same lens at the same settings. I'd go one step further than saying f-stop is a measure of exposure. It's also a physical specification of the lens itself. Meaning the sensor plays no part in how the optics of the lens work, and depth of field is explicitly a result of optics, not sensor size. You can mathematically separate depth of field from the camera....yet here we are, still arguing over the laws of physics. Nice experiment!
We need to get more people involved in photography, not shame them out of the art form because they may like m4/3 or APSC, or simply can’t manage the expense or weight of bigger sensor systems.
I am FF amateur shooter (Nikon d800). Nice video but several issues might have mitigate the differences in quality. II would redo the text pushing the cameras to their limits (i.e., portraits shoot wide open with the best lenses available in the systems and images provided as large high quality TIFF or JPG files to be shared online or large print-outs if you want to do with casual persons or pro photographer or whoever else). It is possible you might find some differences.
I think there is something artistic about creating a picture with a special camera, in this case a medium format camera. Don't get me wrong, I use and love my full frame mirrorless Sony as a solid and good performing workhorse but after I worked a couple times with a Hasselblad H2D and a Hasselblad 500c/m (with a digital back) I can't stop thinking of buying one of the systems in the future. I don't think that these cameras are generally superior (or superior at all) but I can't deny that taking a picture with these system feels simply better in some way. And at the end photography is also about emotions. Some things can't be measured.
Really? Medium formats fastest lenses are only equal to a 85mm f1.57 on full frame. The very fastest ones available. In fact m43 can meet and exceed medium format in most instances! Medium format is objectively inferior to FF. Slower glass, larger system, less technology in the bodies, shitty video, etc. M43 flat out trounces medium format for speed, ease of use, and frankly in many situations image quality. An Olympus em1x can output 80mpx images with dof shallower than most medium format lenses can even produce. So what am I missing?
@@cheeeeezewizzz for example in the video, he used lenses that can be reproduced using m4/3, by using m4/3 as the base, and multiplying to get other format's lens equivalent. What if he used a very fast lens on a large sensor instead? It simply cannot be reproduced on a m4/3 camera.
You would have to go below an f1.4 on FF to be out of the reach of m43. It's possible to get to f0.8 on m43 with adapters and speed boosters. And f1.8 on FF is good enough for anything. The majority of professional photographers are rarely shooting at f1.2 or f0.95 on FF. It's there as an option sure. But matching f1.8 is easy on m43 because there are like 10 different f0.95 lenses for m43 and the ff ones can be adapted to it as well. I've never heard a ff shooter say "Man this 85mm f1.8 is just terrible, it's not shallow enough dof!" FF does indeed beat m43 in the ultimate quality department and low light and dof, but it doesn't beat it by much. And the m43 quality is already good enough. Plus m43 beats FF in basically every other way. Usability, portability, video features, stabilization, lens options, choice of camera manufacturers, adapting lenses, size, speed, silent operation, stealth, etc. You sacrifice so much to use FF and get better quality, but that quality is only visible when pixel peeping and nobody who looks at your pixels will ever ever be able to tell. Even professional photographers can't tell the difference between them. It just seems like a shitty trade to me. @@JerryWoo96
in Fuji, for example, I can not find a 24-70 2.8 or 50 1.4 equivalent, because it would have to be something like a 16-50 2 and a 35 1.2, to offer the same minimum depth of field. Of course if I look for an equivalent to f8 in full frame, it's easy
You can still see the differences even with the images made to look similar to each other. Most of the time, the cameras with the larger sensor will have a higher dynamic range which, if the exposure is the same, should allow you to see more detail in the highlights with less clipping.
Mutahar Farooq: if you compare earlier Canon full frame models - such like everything bevor the current line up - they have less dynamic range than a lot of APS-C competitors. It‘s not only sensor format, it‘s also sensor technology.
Mutahar Farooq: that‘s right. The only danger I see is if people wanting/buying a full frame camera have this rule in their mind, they might think sth. like a current Canon RP would have a better dynamic range than a good APS-C camera, which actually not the case.
Idk but it wouldn't allow ME to see more details in either highlights or shadow. I am sure it lets the RAW converter see more details, but not me, not before tone-mapping the entire 14 stops of dynamic range down to the measly 6 or 8 stops that my LCD display can present to my eyes, assuming the lighting in my room is perfect. When there are more and more f/1.4 lenses that can out-resolve the 51Mpx full-frame sensor in the portrait portion of the frame, the point of Medium Format system is fading away fast, unless their price (camera and lenses) can drop down to mortal range.
Great stuff - we miss these perspectives out on the Internet. There are simply too many nerds with unbalanced points of view contributing to all the hype about sensor sensitivity and shadow recovery compared to all there is to great photography. Good work, I'm looking forward to watching the continuation. Sure some cameras are going to be better than others when pixelpeeping, but that has very little value in and of itself. Let's let this take us a bit beyond comparing, towards creating.
I’m pretty much with Fstoppers on this one. The sensors only account for dynamic range, max theoretical resolution and efficiency at gathering light, depending on the size of each photosite, filters employed, BSI scheme, efficiency of SNR firmware post A/D conversion (ISO performance), etc. Everything else comes down to the lens in front of any given sensor. -Focal length/magnification, aperture size, lens formulation, quality of glass and coatings, etc. To me, this means it’s a battle or issue of optics, rather than sensor size. For example, even though a 25mm lens on MFT has the same FOV as a50mm on FF, even though comparable background blur can be achieved by with a wide enough aperture (applying the crop factor to the f-stop value) there is still no getting past the fact that 50mm is greater magnification. And blurred out background or not, that greater magnification changes the depth of field in the image. (Not the be confused with depth of focus) Angle of view and field of view, while similar, are also not the same thing. Which to me, explains why you are able to get nearly (but not exactly) the same “look” out of any sensor size, provided you put the right/equivalent optic in front of it. All that to say, to the discerning eye, the longer focal length is still going to make the most unmatchable difference. While almost negligible in portraiture, it makes a very significant difference in applications like landscape photography and drone videography. Perhaps some of that “look” we’re all arguing about may inescapably, just be magnification...?
I don't want to get into a debate over this, but videos like this make me LESS likely to come back. Yes, if you want to try and make them look the same, you can. Are there benefits to full frame and medium format? Obviously. Shooting under circumstances that don't push any of the sensors out of their comfort zone will reveal that, of course, any decent camera these days can take a nice picture. But the question as phrased in your title is different than what you answer here. As someone who uses both crop and full frame sensors, one can use technique to mimic larger sensors on a smaller sensor camera, but things such as low light performance and many other things will USUALLY vary unless you're taking great pains to hide it. And the reason both exist is because each have advantages and disadvantages (size, image quality, etc). The fact that you had to shoot one of the lenses stopped all the way down to f/8, which almost no one would ever do with that camera and lens combo, demonstrates the opposite of what you seem to think it does: it says that under typical use, the images WOULD look different. I'm no partisan in this race, but to pretend that you can always (or even usually) get the exact same results out of both is simply incorrect. That's not to say you can't get great images out of anything from micro-four-thirds to medium format, but they are designed and perform different because they are different. And listen, you can ignore me if you want, but I'm just writing as sincere constructive criticism this because, while I currently watch many of your videos, but will probably avoid them in the future if this is the kind of content you guys want to do. It's neither revealing
Okay.. what according to you would be an optimal test to figure out what he was talking about. In other words, what would be an optimal photo to shoot with a medium format and right down to micro 4/3 to see if the medium format photo looks different?
Yes, they do. My Canon 5D Mark II broke mid photo shoot and I was in a pinch and needed a new photo/video camera but a new FF wasn’t in the budget. So I opted for the a6500 with the sigma 18-35 f1.8 and even the Mitakon 35mm f0.95, and let me tell you, as good as I got at learning to get the best images out of the sony with white balance, exposure, noise etc. And as much as I tried to convince myself that it was the same, every time I went back and looked at old 5D mark II FF images, they just BLEWWWW them out of the water in terms of dynamic range, noise, clarity and sharpness. However, this is when I’m viewing the images at full resolution on a 27 inch iMac. This is ESPECIALLY true when you’re shooting super wide open with shallow depth of field with nice lenses, and you’ll get way shallower DOF. Even with the f0.95 Mitakon, it just didn’t look as nice as the FF equivalent. And FF makes a big difference when you’re printing. But if you’re shooting for images on social media and such, sure, it doesn’t make that big of a difference. That said, I MUCH prefer the crop sensor on the a6500 for video, but for stills, FF takes the cake for high end imagery.
I’m not angry, but... 1. Should have shot all the photos indoors with even, controllable lighting 2. Should have used a tripod for all the position to be nearly the same 3. Should have used a non-moving subject such as a mannequin 4. Should have taken the different color science of all camera manufacturers into account
good point, however, most of the practical , real life tests happen the way he did it, hand shots, outside, no flash, just as it is, point and shot, before the scene changes. so here we come.
I have seen thousands and thousands of crappy images taken by "serious armature" using the most expensive gears. Those are the ones making the most noise. Keep the good work coming. a thumbs up for you.
For video I prefer the super 35 vs the larger 35mm full frame. For photography I prefer full 35mm full frame. Mostly for vintage or specialty lenses like the Lensbaby Twist 60 or Zenit lenses. The rest of the 90% time a APSC or DX lens will look great and indistinguishable from a full frame sensor..... within reason.... meaning you can only isolate your subject so much from a 18-55 3.5-5f DX lens vs a 50mm 1.8. Also aperture blade count and shape make a large factor for bokeh. Probably the LEAST important factor is sensor size. Except in low light comparing top new cameras side by side... otherwise the newer cameras usually beat older cameras regardless of sensor size. usually. But for video/cine my fav I is super 35mm since I grew up shooting super 35mm movie film. (Roughly an APSC/DX sensor size.. though slightly larger). A MFT for video just becomes so cramped for existing lenses and harder to get shallow DOF on medium and wide shots... But i can still get what I want 90% of the time from any camera system. :)
If comparing low res daylight photos taken with deep depth of field makes you feel better about not owning a FF or MF camera, knock yourself out. Do the same test at night, in a nightclub, with a wide open fast lens on each, or blown up to poster size. Suddenly the sensor size will be all too apparent.
The « Medium format look» was first used in analog film photography, where medium format had a film area between 2,7 and 4.5 the size of 35mm. Of course it looked different, and in most cases much better.
Not a waste of time, worth the trial, thanks. It just shows that it is not just about the camera/sensor, it what you do with it, plus people have massive opinions, but most of them are based on ignorance. I have both Full Frame and M4/3 cameras, so 90% of the shots are the same, it when you push the limits that you find the slight differences.
You cropped it and changed it to low res. In the next test please don't crop or change the res. For Facebook, Instagram postings and small size prints it'll look similar without the shallow depth of field. Also, include rx100 and cellphone cameras, they'll look pretty much the same if you take pics in good light, stop down, change it to low res and crop.
I do wonder a bit about whether heavy crops for pixel peepers could've altered the results, but I think this is a worthwhile demonstration. Equivalent settings will get equivalent results on different formats, lens availability is the biggest difference. (Try finding a cheap 50mm f/1.8 equivalent on any format other than full frame, for example.)
I've tried convincing friends that they *don't* need to switch from their crop sensor cameras to full frame if they just get the right lenses... but sometimes those lenses just plain don't exist and they wind up switching anyway.
This topic is something I always wanted to learn more about since I started photography. If anything it opens up a lot of doors for those who want to change camera gears for ergonomics and price 🤙🏾
The reaction you're getting to this is highly predictable. The same thing happens when you confront heavily invested hi-fi snobs with the evidence of well-designed double-blind tests comparing a system that costs, say $5,000 with one that costs $50,000... and no-one can tell them apart. Obviously, you've done the test wrong!
I used to work at an streaming audio service and I had an argument with a dev that said NOBODY could tell the differences between 56/128/320/Lossless as we were trying to decide the compression rates we wanted to launch with. He did a blind test on me and I got them all correct, and he even did one at 148 or some such nonsense and had me guess and I said 150. But I did agree that I am in a VERY small minority and we chose our bit-rates accordingly...the point is there ARE people that can tell the differences in these things, but they are in the very very small percentage. Knowing what the test criteria is is key. In this test of course there is little difference that most can't see since the "Difference ratio" of any quality (much like most music bit rate) change is almost negligible to most people
Oh, and I'd still put my Mamiya RB67 with the right film for the situation against any modern system. If you have the time, that glass and that size of negative is still hard to beat...it's just not convenient and the majority of people couldn't tell the difference anyway, but hey I'm not making images for you. :P
And of course this is the internet and there is no way for me to prove it, but I went and took the test and found it hard at the low resolution but chose them correctly...for this I get nothing and can go back to taking pictures with whatever I have at the moment since I stopped worrying about gear. :)
I've done the same blind test myself, with different bit rates being compared. I could tell 320 from 96 with a little over 90% accuracy, but telling 320 from 150 was harder, I only got 60% right. So, I have an objective reason to prefer 320. However, I simply couldn't distinguish between two hi-systems, both playing the same 320 bit content - even though one cost 10 times more than the other.
You can take great shots with any camera... 100% agree. Photos taken in the middle of day (with a ton of light) look exactly the same... agree. BUT, my experience is that the larger sensors will handle low light (higher ISO) with less noise. Feel free to let me know if I'm wrong?
The real difference is when you get a call from the printing company (my family owns one) or the client to have the photo with more resolution for their print.
15 yrs in the bus …. have yet to receive that call. Even todays M43 cameras are more than capable of fantastic huge prints. Heck- the G9 has an 80MP high res mode- so unless you are planning to crop your files by 93 percent- you should be ok!
I've owned m4/3, apsc, and full frame. They're all able to achieve the same look and I still can't tell the difference (unless pixel peeping), it's just which type/features do you need more. I use full frame the most because I like the f/2.8 zooms for run & gun shooting (there's no apsc f/1.8 zooms nor m4/3 f/1.4).
+Fstoppers Hi there. Did you ever make the follow-up videos to this? I have been shooting M4/3 for a while now and was considering going back to FF now that Canon has caught up to Olympus. I was curious to see the results of the tests.
Hi great video... it's been a couple of months now, and I was just wondering if you were still planning on making the video with the all the camera prints? Would be really interesting to see how well they stack up to each other. Thanks!
A new comment for an old video. I use both M43 and FF 35mm. I find FF lenses heavy but higher MP and shallow DOF are the main pluses. I have Sony 42mp and 24mp cameras landscapes benefit from 42mp, 24mp 24mm and 40mm lenses that are fast give good shallow DOF and great Bokeh. I use M43 for zooms, and teles since they pack small and carry lite. For low light FF sensors gather more light and so they can go to higher ISO with lower noise than M43, and have better dynamic range. My Sony A9 takes pictures in almost darkness with my f1.2 lens. I have a Panasonic G9 and its good IQ in good light. I find with the 42.5mm f1.7 I can get good portraits, and the M43 frame means no cropping in prints. This blended system offers the best of what each frame size and equipment offer.
In old days we only had to care about three things: the format, the film and the lens quality. That was really easy. The camera bodies for 35 format were almost the same, no great difference in handling. I'm looking at the compo, when I view photos. The technique is second row. You've got a thumb up...
Fullframe still have a huge advantages in night and astrophotography and way shallow dof which is perfect for portrait photography. It really depends on what you shoot.
@@Lccan1990 But the cost is much higher and full frame line lenses are expensive too. For me personally, since I don't shoot professionally for clients and all, aps-c is great.
@@Lccan1990 No but even professionally, many people do shoot with aps-c, cause like there isn't a whole lot of difference if you see, people do still shoot amazing milkyway shots from aps-c (Sony a6300 in my case) and if you saw this video, you obviously won't argue about DOF.
YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! I just recently traded my 36MP full frame D810 system in for a 27MP APS-C Fuji X-T3 system. Before you think I'm crazy, I can tell you this: I do not miss the D810 AT ALL! Fuji glass is the best (IMHO) and I get the sharpest images ever from the new system. I did go through a transition period to get used to the EVF, since I have been using OVF for years. I love the fact that I have a live histogram and have learned to expose with that (I can safely shoot to the right without clipping and preserve shadows...post processing is a breeze) It isn't the camera or sensor size...it's the glass that will make the difference! (and of course, comp skills are a requirement as well)
I have two friends who shoot with Fuji medium format. Their work looks great! One is a Canon shoot and one is a Nikon shooter, but when they shoot with the Fuji the images look better. Scientific tests are great but we talking about a art form. The numbers don't matter its the end result. I love the look of the Fuji.
Why dont you talk to photographers that actually use medium format cameras and ask them why they choose medium format sensor cameras over others. Also, Karl Taylor has several videos on his page comparing medium format to 35mm full frame that might be worth taking a look at (don't worry, people argue on his videos as well).
"Why dont you talk to photographers that actually use medium format cameras and ask them why they choose medium format sensor cameras over others". Because most off them are biased. They think it is/was the best. But if you actually put the numbers together and compare apples to apples: MF only wins with resolution (above 50MP).
@Neil1770053 The sad thing is, the Hasselblad would have won anyway, but it was a case diminishing returns, where you have to spend a hell of a lot more money for tiny improvements. The new 100MP sensor (and the 150MP 645 sensor) do move the game on significantly from Full Frame, but what you're effectively getting is a bigger image rather than a camera with a new type of look. The medium format look was definitely a thing in the days of film, now, it doesn't exist. It's a bit like Leica users bleating on about "the Leica look". It was a thing back in the film days, now, it doesn't exist.
@@UCreations Dude, you're just making up BS with your generalisations. There are enough official Fuji X photographers wo both use APS-C and Fuji's semi-medium format. There are tool that work best in some cases, whereas they won't work as great in others. Larger sensors will always allow for more tonal details, better colour rendition, etc, there's just no working around for that. The question is what you want or need personally. All popular sensor sizes (mft, super 35mm/aps-c, and 35mm/ff) have their compromises and (dis-)advantages, and just because someone uses sth. with joy and explains why he/she can't get the same images with another system, that doesn't make the tech you use bad. You are the one turning this whole thing into an argument.
I was looking for exact same test, i think angle of view may have diff outcome but its something that can be done with any sensor i guess. Full frame or medium format shines in LOW LIGHT, thats the only difference. Aps-c camera with IBIS is almost as good as full frame
I think when most people say "Medium Format has a different look" they are referring to film, not digital. Digital medium format sensors aren't very large in comparison.
I see your point regarding the film days' medium format vs. 35mm. But this is where I beg to differ. Forget sensor size comparisons for a moment - even photos taken by the same company, same sensor size, but *different* bodies can yield differing *results* . Take the 5D Mark IV vs. the R6 for instance; Both bodies are made by the same company, houses the same full-frame sensor size, but they produce very different *looks* . A more relevant example would be to perhaps bring in an expert who have hosted photo-art galleries. I have interviewed photographers who shot with medium format cameras vs. full frame cameras. And they all came to a collaborative conclusion: Medium format cameras produces significantly better images than than their lower megapixel counter-part. It gets extremely evident when you put up the *prints* side by side. It isn't just about the megapixel count, but rather, there is just this *look* about medium format sensors/ cameras that produces such distinction.
what if you also cropped all the images to fit the medium format ratio and see if your viewers can tell the difference. And perhaps dont do any cropping or resizing and see what the viewers prefer.
hahahaha I love this! and I for one truly appreciate honest reviews and test like these because It helps me make the right decisions on my future purchases thank you fstoppers keep up the good work!
In general conditions there is pretty much no difference, agreed, what matters though is the size of the pixels and the correlation to light sensitivity. Bigger sensor, more space=bigger pixels ergo better sensitivity to light. Do a night photography or low light shots and there is where the bigger sensors should excel. I am really curious because sony a7iii or a7sii has great low light capabilities but micro 4/3 in bmpcc4k offers better performance because it is easier to cool it down than full frame. Every camera and its sensor represents a trade off.
Can’t remember I’d you talked about the difference relative to print output? When comparing my full frame Canon 5DS to my medium format Phase One P65+ at 300 DPI at 16” x 20” (actual prints) I could detect minor differences but both very satisfying and salable. The difference increased at larger print sizes with the medium format being the preferred image, but the full frame was still excellent. However, when compared to less than a full framed sensor, the print quality difference at the above mentioned specs was massive. But all the images looked good as web sized final outputs.
As a photographer for more than 50 years, 12+ of those working professionally in military, industrial, biodmedical and security industries plus a little commercial work, I got a great laugh out of this. So glad you did it and subscribed so I don't miss your next test. When I shoot, my thoughts are on what will be my final or primary medium for sharing. If it is for social media, any decent cell phone camera is good enough. If it is for larger print or or news publication display, even a small 1" sensor can produce amazing results in decent light. Good photographers shoot for their primary outcome for expression. Not for pixel peeping. And the truth is that in normal situations, almost any camera with a decent lens and proper exposure and photographic vision can be a great shot. Sensor and lens don't really matter that much. It is when you push the extremes, that you begin to see the difference, and even there, it is not as extreme as many people think. Of course I grew up with photography when there was no auto-focus, no auto exposure, no affordable fast lenses (F3.5 was considered fast). I also shot with everything from 8X10 inch sheet film to 35mm but mostly medium format. It seems that in today's world it is about 'extreme' bragging rights more than actual quality, usability or output. I can't imagine being a sports photographer today and have to sit down and screen literally thousands of perfectly exposed and perfectly in focus images, none of which stand out. I'm retired now. I shoot for the joy of it and my own personal satisfaction. I probably get more interesting photos with my camera phone, simply because that is the camera I always have with me. Yet when I do have my good gear and get out with it, I am shooting not for social media or bragging rights but for something that is special or extraordinary to me. Something for print. We live in a world of social media gear heads, and very few "real" photographers. Then again, the real photographers are probably out with their cameras creating a few great images, not sitting at a computer most of the time arguing gear. In my pro years, my greatest photo accomplishment was as a Navy photographer on the weekend on-call duty. A recon aircraft was inbound with shots of a new Russian ship. Shots were taken from a bad angle, at sunset using a 5 inch film nose camera. By the time the film arrived, I and the intel mate had 4 hours to process, the film and deliver 50 sets of finished photos. He selected a series of 5 shots from one angle that would be made into a composite image. Each Frame was unevenly exposed so in printing I had to hand dodge and burn every image for every frame and we had to produce 50 copies of each frame, or a total of 250 prints, each hand dodged and burned, all in under 4 hours (and that included film processing time.). We did it. We got an award for it. No one outside of military intel or command would ever see it, but it was an amazing feat of skill to do it. I closed the lab at 5:30 AM. The intel guy still had 30 minutes to make 50 copies of his analysis to package with the prints and a plane was waiting to take it all to the "big guys" in Washington and all the relative units around the world. I left a message for the lab chief and told him I had been up all night and needed some sleep so couldn't make it in at 8 AM. He sent me a message back and said that was fine. To report at Noon instead. Real photography is about getting the job done, no matter the job or the conditions. Gear does not matter. Only final results matter relative to the end use for the images. I worked in technical fields as a military, industrial, biomedical and security photographer for more than 12 years. The only argument about gear was "can it get the job done". And yes, even in those fields there is a need for "creative" photography. Have never had any paying client ask me what gear I used. They only care about final results. The argument about gear is really more about the final use and outcome. Not about pixels, format or brand.
what camera would be the best at taking pictures of the woods lots of trees annd suck to get best image of say a squirrel on a limb or what ever happens to be in shot not really focusing on anything just the woods then examining picture
glad i read that. i find myself fixated on gear and too many shots too. i know about it already, but this text did something to me. thank you!
Sorry to say but lenses do matter. I'm just realising that my Sony kit lens 16-50 is not sharp at all. I'm just beginning out.
@@AshishKumar-kv4hr of course some lenses are sharper than others. especially kit lenses are obviously just basic quality in a small package.
but if you read david robinsons comment like I did, you will come to the conclusion that its mostly about getting the work done.
i also own expensive sony GM lenses and some Sigma Art ones, and I too see a difference on my monitor.
But no matter how much i will spend on gear, its about getting the work done in the end.
Most professional video work or film is done at f4 or even slower, makes me rethink all the money I spent on f1.4 primes.
Thank you for sharing your incredible story!!
You should also do a test to see whether it takes the same amount of time for a Porsche 911 and a Ford 150 to travel from A to B, when both vehicles are traveling at 60mph.
😆😆😆😆😆😆
Hahahaha good point
Exactly what I was thinking...
Metaphor is perfect
Crop the speed to 20 same test as this camera test :D
Anybody who claims they can tell the difference between low res images from different sized sensors shot at f8 and cropped to look similar is on the wrong end of the Dunning-Kruger curve.
Or on the far left of an IQ bellcurve.
and compression from youtube
I can tell especially in astro, but not only, when i shoot with with my sony ff or my olympus, both posted to social. Sony is just smoother
What is the point of such a test? If I wanted photos at such a low resolution then I could stick to my 3.2 MP digital camera from the year 2000. I got the cheapest camera with the sensor I wanted. The A5100 gives me very similar results to what I expect from my film days except I get way better dynamic range. No phone camera is close enough to be remotely interesting by comparison, plus that phone would cost a lot more. Without RAW and that dynamic range then my whole style of shooting goes out the window. I like non-staged situations and being able to get highlights and shadow detail on a sunny day without fill lights or bounce cards is an amazing freedom. No phone gives me the digital darkroom flexibility that I need and when cropping, you need 3-4 times more resolution in the small sensor in order to match the actual visible resolution of the larger sensor.
They’re not at f8 across the board. Only one camera was at f8.
The “special look” of medium format exists because you get the FOV of a wider lens while retaining the compression/perspective of a larger focal length. It’s exactly what the “Brenizer Method” is based on.
Exactly, when you shoot with a 90mm lens on a 6x9, and it has the same FOV as a 35mm lens on full frame, but has the shallow dof of a 90mm lens at close range.... that's the magic....don't get me started on 4x5 or 8x10
Compression and perspective are functions of your distance from the subject and not the lens.
@@cheeeeezewizzz I dont even know what hes talking about, hes just wrong.
@@Steelcrafted ok. We won't...
Alex Vozniuc we get this. Fstoppers has done this before. The tiny detail that counts here is 'the equivalent field of view'. I guess it all depends on the dof you are after. I own a Canon 85mm F1.2 and f1.2 is unuable for portraits, the dof is too tight. This video is for entertainment.
Mate! you definitely have to read out some of your favourite and most heated comments on your next video. That would be gold.
Also looking forward to the results, probably will not change my mind on the cameras I use, but it will make me more informed on the advise I give.
Yeaaaah read them all
Lots of comments, no controversy. Everyone agrees that at very low resolutions / everything in focus, it is hard to tell the difference, but that there is an obvious difference in every other situation.
can you make a video on the the difference between Nikon camera straps and Canon camera straps?
Why not medium format camera straps too? They have a little something special about them. I can't quite put my finger on it, but they just look a little better.
Don Fitzsimmons dont forget mft straps they fit different .
I find Canon straps have the best colors.
What is with the fancys third party straps?
Ive had a nikon strap on my 6d for a while i felt like both cannon users and nikon users would kill me at any moment......
bro plz i can clearly see the mans soul on the medium format camera.
Hahah
Hilarious
It's almost as if the photographer's art, the composition, the lighting and the concept of the photo are more important than the canera that records the final image... this is heresy. Premium-quality WUM, I approve
So you’re telling me that great new camera with an extra 10mp and amazing eye focus won’t make my photos into master pieces 😭
sure, but just try to take images in lowlight with a kit lens and a camera that has bad ISO performance. Not saying good gear makes someone instantly a pro but even a pro can't capture certain images in certain conditions with any gear.
@@xcy7 sure, a pro photographer would never attempt to improve a low light situation with strobes. Point taken. I'll buy the medium format.
xcy-7 lol most pros would use either strobes or Speedlights, not only to improve the low light situation but also to make their images better than an amateur’s.
@@thomasjames7644 yeah, if you can carry around strobes or have reflective surfaces for the speedlight. Neither of them would work for, for example, a military combat photographer. You also couldn't really carry around a strobe if you're photographing a social event where the subjects are moving around. A speedlight could be useless depending on the space. Both the speedlight and the strobe light could also potentially ruin the look and feel of the shot since it introduces light that naturally is not present in the scene.
I got my popcorn. Can't wait for the show to start in the comments!
Lots of comments, no controversy. Everyone agrees that at very low resolutions / everything in focus it is hard to tell the difference but that there is an obvious difference in every other situation.
The sensor size and results are irrelevant. Everyone knows photography is obsessing about the specs of the latest gear, pulling the trigger, taking it out a few times and then leaving it to gather dust in a drawer while we use our phones. Thought we were all clear on this.
Tom Ripley lol
🤣🤣🤣
true story ...
🤣🤣🤣🤣 Best comment!
get out of my head!
Should you throw in a decent mobile phone's camera in the mix?
Jacob Edmonds are there any ? I am being serious. Today I was shooting kids rugby. I had the only camera there - yes really. This was in an affluent suburb, and no one was using their expensive phones, because they cannot shoot sports.
@@nordic5490 I agree with you. I don't think this test is specifically designed for sports though. I really don't think an iPhone or pixel could really beat a mirror less or full frame camera especially when it comes to anything with a telephoto or fast shutter speed but might be interesting to see the test results though. Or even chuck it on a drone and test wide angle footage.
@Bhargav Chavda are you seriously telling me to shoot sport with that p30 shaky 10x optical zoom? stop fantasize the phone ffs.
For video yes, for stills even though the resolution might match a modern ILC the handling wont. I can shoot monster fish in my community tank a hell of a lot easier with my fuji than I can with my zenfone.
In your future videos be sure to test ISO on darker photos when comparing size of sensors. This will make a really good video.... I can already tell a difference on the guys shirt with grain showing worse on one and not the full frame.... This is how you can tell in major way which camera made which pic...
*Laughs in large format*
LF is unmatched in resolution and shallow DOF. You can get the equivalent of like f/0.73 on 8x10
Just random gibberish about jargons lol used to be funny but now irrelevant.. thiojoe..
Not angry here... 😂 Good test, thanks! This is on a fully lit scene. I'd love to run the same test on a low light scene.
@@jscul That wouldn’t prove anything though. He explains that. That’s like saying he should’ve shot wildlife so APSC looks best because of the crop factor.
@@jscul That is exactly the point. The differences are widely discussed and widely known. He even mentions the differences here. This is showing how any format can reproduce almost the same image. And how hard they can be to tell apart.
@@jscul That’s a reason he explained. And clearly it’s important to you. But there’s hundreds of videos explaining the pros and cons already. He mentioned those points but this video isn’t about those differences.
@@jscul But this discussion is prepositioned on a scenario he wasn’t addressing. Those issues are discussed a thousand times already. Everyone knows a full frame sensor is better for night sky photography. Not everyone knows you can create almost identical shots with different sensors and focal lengths.
@@jscul But that information is widely known and accepted. Why must every comparison go into detail about something most people know? Night sky photography is a very small segment of the photography community and that is not what this piece is about. Personally, I shoot a lot of wildlife and he didn’t go into much detail about the advantages a crop sensor has in that regard, but that’s not what this is about.
Must every comparison relate directly to your own interest? I would’ve thought not. But you clearly feel it must.
Aps-c still the sweet spot for me. Portablity, the price and decent picture quality.
and the size of a camera.
@@tomasrandom6430 Yeah, APS-C camera that fits in a coat pocket is for me.
Me to. APS-C for low light shots.
APSC is ok. I'd rather use full frame because of the better dynamic range and low noise, with just a slight weight and size increase. It definitely makes a difference in regards to performance and image quality in many situations I find myself in.
@@MusicByAngels more likely your FF camera will have lower dynamic range than APS-C in most often used ISO range 200 - 3200
go here: www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
and compare Fuji X-pro3 with FF camera you planning to buy
"I also like making all the photography nerds angry" keep going Lee. I'll be with you hahahahha
Phitthaya Thepwichian more anger = more comments = altering the Google algorithm to bump this video up in 'recommendations'. This is business.
@@nordic5490 Very entertaining business, though! :D
Lots of comments, no controversy that I can find. Everyone agrees that at very low resolutions / everything in focus, it is hard to tell the difference, but that there is an obvious difference in every other situation.
0ooTheMAXXoo0 yet you’ve felt the need to repost this exact comment several times 🤔😜
Haha, love it. For me I have the best camera for me. That's all I need.
At first, I was about to hate on this video but your point is very true imo. The main thing people say is great about full frame is the shallow depth of field. 🤷🏿♂️ Depth of field is overrated especially if you shoot studio work or fashion (f8 or f11 in almost every studio setting). Also when I shoot events I usually shoot at F4 or 5.6 anyway...
I went from aps-c (Nikon d500) to full frame a7r3... I made the switch because I wanted eye af,a smaller lighter body and more megapixels. Overall, any picture I take with the a7r3, I could have taken with the d500. I find the high iso performance to be similar between the 2. Honestly the best thing i get from the a7r3 is crop-ability and crop mode. I get the high mp without the drawbacks of horrible high iso performance. I don't really notice much difference in the depth of field primarily because I really don't shoot wide open anymore. I will say the main thing I miss about my d500 was the combo with the sigma 50-100 1.8. I feel like that lens was irreplaceable because of what it offered in terms of low light (not depth of field).
:36 Ehh, f-stop is actually a mathematical function relating to the amount of light the aperture will let through, it doesn't say anything about the _actual_ amount of light transmitted, partly why cinema uses t-stop; the exposure accuracy is far more important than the precise depth of field (yeah, many other reason too).
There is also quite a bit to be said about depth of sharpness, and usability. Let's say you want the background out of focus, and just your subject sharp nose to back of head (10 inches) -full body, a shot like that is a million times easier with medium format due to the sensor size, for 35mm you're at 200mm or more for that (not wasting time finding a DoF calculator), some people can shoot like that, but most (subjects) can't. I guess bit-depth shouldn't be addressed, but it actually should, because if the images are blown up, the small format will fall apart way faster than the high bit depth MF file.
well said
No, f-stop is a measurement of the physical dimensions of the aperture in relation to the focal length of the lens. 50mm lens with a 50mm aperture= f1 lens. 50mm lens with a 25mm aperture= f2 lens, etc. The f stop is nothing but a ratio. Light that passes through is measured in T stops.
kurt lindner Yeh and e=mc2 ✌️
kurt lindner not much difference between f stop and t stop. T stop account for the small amount of light lost.
Joshua Son pretty much what he meant though the words may differ.
I have to say the images don't look exactly the same. The differences can be seen in the background mostly. In the last comparison, when you said they looked exact, my discerning eyes picked up a background that was more blown out in one photo (GFX 50R) than in the other. That, to me, suggested that the one that was not blown out had a wider dynamic range in terms of exposure. The skin tone was also slightly different. The GFX 50R had slightly more orange skin tone - but only very slightly.
I notice those details because I'm a videographer and I color grade all my footage before posting to the public. That brings up another point. In videography, at least, full frame is assumed to be better because theoretically it has higher dynamic range of exposure and color. The Canon EOS R, for instance, is better than the Canon 80D in many respects; but the main difference is that it's full frame. But then you look at the Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera (BMPCC) and you realize the actual image quality is probably just as good as a full frame...The BMPCC is a Micro 4/3 sensor, and as compared to the Canon EOS R, it's arguably better.
But as we all know, the true quality comes not in the camera but in the artist behind the camera....And in the color grading in post.
Since you brought up the 80D v R, would you recommend an upgrade from the 80D to say the R6, by passing the R? Or are APS-C DSLR's still relevant in 2021?
@@sonicvboom They're still relevant. But if you're upgrading, go to the R6 or R5. Keep in mind that the R6/R5 are not ideal for video due to overheating issues, so perhaps look into a different camera if you're doing a lot of video, like Sony a7s iii.
I like shooting full frame simply because it gives me the best lens selection and I don't have to mess around with equivalent focal lengths or apertures. That, alone, is worth it to me. I recently sold my Fujifilm X-H1 and now primarily use a Nikon DSLR. I can't tell you how nice it was to go from "Okay, this is my 23mm f1.4, which is basically my fast-35... except it's not particularly fast since it is actually equivalent to a 35mm f2... damn, is there a lens that give me an equivalent of f1.4 on aps-c? Oh... nothing with autofocus..." to suddenly saying "This is my fast-35" (the end, no further consideration needed).
I went the opposite way. I have had a full frame Nikon DSLR for years and when it was time to upgrade, I went to a X-H1. Now I still use my D800 for studio work, but generally I am shooting at f/10 and I prefer using a OVF with flash but I rarely shoot wide open and the Fujifilm 90mm f/2 gives me all the depth of field I really need out door. Even with my Nikkor 105mm f/1.4, I can barely remember using the lens wide open.
and the low light high iso shots.
what makes an image good (at least for what I do- fashion and portraits) in order of most important to least important … the photographer, the model, the clothes / styling, the light, the location, story, luck, everyone in a good mood, lens, body (sensor size). Given this- the size of a sensor is very rarely the thing that makes or breaks a shot. So many other factors are so much more important- and even if you wanted to focus entirely on technicals- a well lit small sensor camera can often out resolve a poorly lit large sensor camera. So really it all just depends- for more photographers- full frame makes the most sense b/c its portable enough, fast enough etc to be convenient- and its large enough of a sensor to give you the creative choice to not always have to light your situation perfectly. Other photographers who always light their shots with strobes or flash might be much better served with APS-C or M43 if they offer a price point or technology set that adds value to the shooter like a 4k60 hybrid video fundtion or a flippy screen to help compose images at low and high angles- etc
I think your comment would cover not only this but many other questions I mostly see on youtube!
I love this!!! Keep making these types of videos. The people who rage can't be true photographers. You are right when you say you can take great shots with any camera.
You can take great shots with any camera but ... come on ... I can take better shots on my full frame camera than if I used my daughter's Barbie doll camera from Walmart.
I agree, I use a D5300 and am constantly thinking about when I should upgrade but I love the photos I get and I couldn't see a better camera making much of a difference to the work I produce.
True, my iPhone takes great shots
I believe all current camera and most older cameras take great pictures. I nobody ever says how good there pictures from there a77ii are. Maby its just me but my a77ii had a lot of problem with coler noise and soft images especially in lower light. I was shooting everything in jpeg didnt try proccesing raw images maby that would make a diffrence.
It's a nice romantic idea, but it's also not true: you just can't replicate the look of a FF 35mm 1.4 on a MFT system, unless someone comes out with a 17mm 0.7 lens. On Super-FF (APS-C), you'd need a 24mm 1.0.
Yeah, I can already hear people say that such a shallow DOF is cheap gimmickry, but those people are almost always using crazy telephoto ranges for their portraits. A FF 35mm 1.4 will give less bokeh and therefore more context in an environmental portrait, than let's say MFT tele-portrait lenses.
Why wouldn’t you shoot a Portrait at F8? Not every Portrait suits a ridiculous shallow depth of field. So many haters!
Online, I wouldn't expect much of a difference. I think it's print where the larger format cameras shine. There's more detail, more depth to a medium or large format print that you won't get - or that I haven't seen -- in a full frame or smaller sensor. Oh, great! You're going to do a print test! Can't wait for that one!
In addition to larger format sensor size, even more megapixel count will yield very different results when it comes down to larger *prints* . Any one that disagrees have never hosted/ been a photo art gallery before.
So a 12 megapixel medium format will be more detailed than 12 mp ff? And backwards, will a 50 mp ff be less detailed than a 50 mp medium format
Where is the follow up video to this..? I’m interested to see what you found out
Love it. The range of negative reactions and arguments are just misdirected fear of failure, feeling they chose the wrong gear.
P.S. Im happily shooting and selling Crop 12MP.
Well done, from someone who owns micro four thirds, apsc and full frame. Processing photographs is an art in itself and makes a big difference. I will be looking at the rest of your posts about this. Thanks for the work you put in. I am someone who has no loyalty to brands or sensor size.
I enjoyed this! Not sure why people get upset about something so elementary and instructive. Thanks!
It's true that any camera can be matched to any other camera in a test like you've done. However, that doesn't take into account how people actually use a camera. E.g put a 50mm f1.8 on a full frame and then use the same on a M4/3 camera and you'll find with the M4/3 you'll have to get further back to get the same framing. Then communicating with models etc gets more difficult. There is so many factors to be considered in the real world that don't have anything to do with how people test. Also, I'm sure you'll get to it, but dynamic range, low light performance etc are big things for me, and many others so thats why I continue to use full frame cameras (I have no brand loyalty but currently use Sony).
50mm full frame =/= 50mm mft
Finally someone did this, thanks! Please include sony a6400 with sigma 56mm f1.4 vs sony a7iii with 85mm f1.8 in that next video!
I had a mate years ago, I went around to his place and he showed me a Hasselblad. It was the first time I had ever seen a camera like that before. I couldn't tell you what model it was but it's one of the ones where you have to look at the camera from above to see the subject in front of you. He demonstrated how take a photo and he took a photo of his kitchen. Mind you it was just an average kitchen, the lighting was normal daylight, nothing special and yet it was one of the most magical photos I had ever seen. I thought how can this camera make an ordinary kitchen look so extraordinary?
You can tell me that under the same conditions you can make images mostly look the same and from this video I believe you however from what I understand now, my mate had a medium format camera and the images from that are significantly more beautiful than on any other camera I have ever seen or used since. So I would say without rigging things to all be matching and just taking photos right out of the box so to speak the medium format images win every time for me.
Totally agreed with your opinion. good luck for next video
Great piece. Look, camera nerdism was severe back when I shot professionally in the 70's and 80's. Anyone remember D76? A lot of your skill was just focused on knowing a useable image would come back from the lab. Every modern camera (and phone) will out perform film. I made 4 ft prints in my bathtub, exposing them with my Durst enlarger turned on its side. The prints were from 400 ASA film that I pushed. The grain was the size of hailstones. They were more powerful, emotive, evocative than most of the super-sharp, 14 levels of dynamic range pictures I see out there now. We have it too good.
I guess the dynamic range tests didn't pan out as that video we were promised never came.
Hahah amazing!
This video should never be hated, it saves clueless photographers from spending the extra to upgrade their already great gears that arent really unnecessary just to satisfy their GAS cravings. We should be thanking the author for the all effort he put in this vid to educate us, allowing us to make a more rational decision in investing in any equipment.
I don't know whether to be sad or impressed that this video is not titled "Does (sensor) Size Matter?"
Lee, you are brilliant. This needed to be done to get rid of the fallacy. It has never been about the gear, it’s about the person behind the gear and the sheer skill that that person possesses to get the job done. What Medium format provide is a huge margin in crop ability during the editing process, especially in commercial photography.
Everyone doesn’t need Medium format or even Full Frame and for those who do you will know if you need it and can justify it and Lee is angering people who are gear centric and brand loyal and for that I applaud him. Lee has one goal here and that is to make folks think and realize why we all love photography in the first place, which has nothing to do with full frame, Crop or Medium Format.
This was an awesome test! The Gh5 is such a versatile camera, but it was cool to see the differences with the XT3 and the 6d.
Medium format look comes from the contrast between shooting a short telephoto lens and obtaining with it a wider field of view. For instant, a “normal” focal length for a mamiya RZ67 is a 110mm lens. It gives a field of view similar to a 50mm in full frame. Also, when framing the subject with this lens, we are really close to the subject, so in medium format we are shooting short telephotos and probably closer to the subject, increasing the blurry background. I apreciate the test, but it is insuficient to judge by that picture in the video. Note: the bigger the sensor, the more acentuated is the efect. The fujo sensor is only 1.7 times biger than full frame. The mamiya Rz67 (analog) is 4 times bigger than full frame and the “look” is easy to notice.
"Do Larger Sensors Produce ----Different---- Looking Images? I stood in one spot and shot my buddy Keith Bradshaw with 4 different cameras with 4 different sized sensors. To keep the field of view the same, I used a 50mm "equivalent" lens on each camera. ----To keep the depth of field the same, I changed the aperture as well.----" This is so funny... I'ts the same like a comparison between Ferrari Enzo and Toyota Prius when both drove a 60MPH... CLICKBAIT for me
Right...
No, you're missing the point. He wanted to see if consumers would be able to detect inherent "advantages" of larger sensor cameras such as dynamic range and resolution. The fact that you cannot tell the difference proves the test successful in that the sensor size doesn't matter
@@epicengines2565 You have to tell this to the photographers, who shooting with Hasselblad. They missing the point and they should use a GH5 instead. Sensor doesen't matter. Oh what I love RUclips and pointless comparisons like this one, "controversial" content for making many. I can take identical picture using a smartphone and FF camera. I can prove that sensors doesen't matter. I can prove that focal lenght doesen't matter. I can prove that aperture doesen't matter. I can prove all of these, but I need to prepare my shots before and after if they need to looks similar... If I just grab a two cameras with different sensors and take a pictures, you see this instantly because all of this things matter. Everything depend about subject and what you need or expect.
@@shuttermaniac sorry but this helped me realized just how stupidly biased most photographers are to full frame for such a little thing that wont in a million years make you a good photographer, by a looong shot, specially in making a good image. this confuses a ton of people and unsure of themselves if wether their camera is good enough... ofc taking out of the way *super* cheap options that can do decent at times. y'know, more quality options like a canon m50/100 or a sony rx vii, an A6100/A6400, or any in that range of cameras with smaller sensors, that yet posses high photographical performance and versatility without spending thousands and carrying around bigger/heavier gear... specially if you put on good glass though, that makes a huge difference as many people should know.
@mipmipmipmipmip Do Larger Sensors Produce Different Looking Images? Yes. End of story...
Nicely done Lee! Spot on conclusion. Full frame is the best solution for shallow depth of field in most situations.
Preach! The other big issue you should touch on is that full frame is actually the cheapest way to get shallow dof. To get the equivalent of a 50mm f1.8 on a 35mm sensor you need a 35mm f1.2 on APS-C ($$) or a roughly 70mm f2.4 on MF ($$$).
Interesting! Apologies if this blatantly obvious but how did you come to the f1.2 for APS-C?
F1.4 on DX not F1.2. Also you picked the cheapest and only cheap lens for FF. 50mm F1.8 ff is $100 for Nikon AF-D lens. Pick something like 24mm F1.8 and the lens costs are likely a lot closer.
@@batsonelectronics F1.8 on crop is not the same as f1.8 on full frame the T values would be vastly different.
@@HassanDibani F1.8 would be F1.3 on DX, not the F1.2 the other person said.( I said f1.4 but I was off 1/4 stop ) T stops vary from lens to lens, F Stop is the image standard and is close enough. Circle of light is obviously larger for larger glass but the circle of light for a m4/3 is smaller than for a FF so total light is sensor size dependent.
SO, so glad you did this comparison. I had this heated discussion with a snob of a photographer, who basically considered shooting with anything else than a Hasselblad a waste of time, because the image quality is of the charts in comparison to other formats. I only pointed out, that it really doesn't matter, if you know what are you doing you will produce quality images regardless of the used format. Well, we never spoke since...
Lee, you're doing the Lord's works...keep at it. Haha
I love this. Too often you see RUclipsrs selling the idea that crop sensors change the depth of field when you use the same lens at the same settings. I'd go one step further than saying f-stop is a measure of exposure. It's also a physical specification of the lens itself. Meaning the sensor plays no part in how the optics of the lens work, and depth of field is explicitly a result of optics, not sensor size. You can mathematically separate depth of field from the camera....yet here we are, still arguing over the laws of physics. Nice experiment!
We need to get more people involved in photography, not shame them out of the art form because they may like m4/3 or APSC, or simply can’t manage the expense or weight of bigger sensor systems.
I am FF amateur shooter (Nikon d800). Nice video but several issues might have mitigate the differences in quality. II would redo the text pushing the cameras to their limits (i.e., portraits shoot wide open with the best lenses available in the systems and images provided as large high quality TIFF or JPG files to be shared online or large print-outs if you want to do with casual persons or pro photographer or whoever else). It is possible you might find some differences.
You can get a medium format look like a m4/3, but not the other way around. thats why people buy more expensive gears.
I like this one
I think there is something artistic about creating a picture with a special camera, in this case a medium format camera. Don't get me wrong, I use and love my full frame mirrorless Sony as a solid and good performing workhorse but after I worked a couple times with a Hasselblad H2D and a Hasselblad 500c/m (with a digital back) I can't stop thinking of buying one of the systems in the future. I don't think that these cameras are generally superior (or superior at all) but I can't deny that taking a picture with these system feels simply better in some way. And at the end photography is also about emotions. Some things can't be measured.
Really? Medium formats fastest lenses are only equal to a 85mm f1.57 on full frame. The very fastest ones available. In fact m43 can meet and exceed medium format in most instances! Medium format is objectively inferior to FF. Slower glass, larger system, less technology in the bodies, shitty video, etc. M43 flat out trounces medium format for speed, ease of use, and frankly in many situations image quality. An Olympus em1x can output 80mpx images with dof shallower than most medium format lenses can even produce. So what am I missing?
@@cheeeeezewizzz for example in the video, he used lenses that can be reproduced using m4/3, by using m4/3 as the base, and multiplying to get other format's lens equivalent. What if he used a very fast lens on a large sensor instead? It simply cannot be reproduced on a m4/3 camera.
You would have to go below an f1.4 on FF to be out of the reach of m43. It's possible to get to f0.8 on m43 with adapters and speed boosters. And f1.8 on FF is good enough for anything. The majority of professional photographers are rarely shooting at f1.2 or f0.95 on FF. It's there as an option sure. But matching f1.8 is easy on m43 because there are like 10 different f0.95 lenses for m43 and the ff ones can be adapted to it as well. I've never heard a ff shooter say "Man this 85mm f1.8 is just terrible, it's not shallow enough dof!" FF does indeed beat m43 in the ultimate quality department and low light and dof, but it doesn't beat it by much. And the m43 quality is already good enough.
Plus m43 beats FF in basically every other way. Usability, portability, video features, stabilization, lens options, choice of camera manufacturers, adapting lenses, size, speed, silent operation, stealth, etc. You sacrifice so much to use FF and get better quality, but that quality is only visible when pixel peeping and nobody who looks at your pixels will ever ever be able to tell. Even professional photographers can't tell the difference between them.
It just seems like a shitty trade to me.
@@JerryWoo96
in Fuji, for example, I can not find a 24-70 2.8 or 50 1.4 equivalent, because it would have to be something like a 16-50 2 and a 35 1.2, to offer the same minimum depth of field.
Of course if I look for an equivalent to f8 in full frame, it's easy
You can still see the differences even with the images made to look similar to each other. Most of the time, the cameras with the larger sensor will have a higher dynamic range which, if the exposure is the same, should allow you to see more detail in the highlights with less clipping.
Mutahar Farooq: if you compare earlier Canon full frame models - such like everything bevor the current line up - they have less dynamic range than a lot of APS-C competitors. It‘s not only sensor format, it‘s also sensor technology.
JM2019 That's true, although most of the cameras featured in the video were released in the past 5 years which is how I came up with that theory.
Mutahar Farooq: that‘s right. The only danger I see is if people wanting/buying a full frame camera have this rule in their mind, they might think sth. like a current Canon RP would have a better dynamic range than a good APS-C camera, which actually not the case.
Idk but it wouldn't allow ME to see more details in either highlights or shadow. I am sure it lets the RAW converter see more details, but not me, not before tone-mapping the entire 14 stops of dynamic range down to the measly 6 or 8 stops that my LCD display can present to my eyes, assuming the lighting in my room is perfect.
When there are more and more f/1.4 lenses that can out-resolve the 51Mpx full-frame sensor in the portrait portion of the frame, the point of Medium Format system is fading away fast, unless their price (camera and lenses) can drop down to mortal range.
Dynamic Range deals with sensor quality not sensor size
Great stuff - we miss these perspectives out on the Internet. There are simply too many nerds with unbalanced points of view contributing to all the hype about sensor sensitivity and shadow recovery compared to all there is to great photography. Good work, I'm looking forward to watching the continuation.
Sure some cameras are going to be better than others when pixelpeeping, but that has very little value in and of itself. Let's let this take us a bit beyond comparing, towards creating.
"I released these low-res files online"
Right. Because whoever uses a large sensor camera uses it for low-res files to put online.
you would be surprised
I’m pretty much with Fstoppers on this one. The sensors only account for dynamic range, max theoretical resolution and efficiency at gathering light, depending on the size of each photosite, filters employed, BSI scheme, efficiency of SNR firmware post A/D conversion (ISO performance), etc. Everything else comes down to the lens in front of any given sensor. -Focal length/magnification, aperture size, lens formulation, quality of glass and coatings, etc. To me, this means it’s a battle or issue of optics, rather than sensor size. For example, even though a 25mm lens on MFT has the same FOV as a50mm on FF, even though comparable background blur can be achieved by with a wide enough aperture (applying the crop factor to the f-stop value) there is still no getting past the fact that 50mm is greater magnification. And blurred out background or not, that greater magnification changes the depth of field in the image. (Not the be confused with depth of focus) Angle of view and field of view, while similar, are also not the same thing. Which to me, explains why you are able to get nearly (but not exactly) the same “look” out of any sensor size, provided you put the right/equivalent optic in front of it. All that to say, to the discerning eye, the longer focal length is still going to make the most unmatchable difference. While almost negligible in portraiture, it makes a very significant difference in applications like landscape photography and drone videography. Perhaps some of that “look” we’re all arguing about may inescapably, just be magnification...?
I don't want to get into a debate over this, but videos like this make me LESS likely to come back. Yes, if you want to try and make them look the same, you can. Are there benefits to full frame and medium format? Obviously. Shooting under circumstances that don't push any of the sensors out of their comfort zone will reveal that, of course, any decent camera these days can take a nice picture. But the question as phrased in your title is different than what you answer here. As someone who uses both crop and full frame sensors, one can use technique to mimic larger sensors on a smaller sensor camera, but things such as low light performance and many other things will USUALLY vary unless you're taking great pains to hide it. And the reason both exist is because each have advantages and disadvantages (size, image quality, etc). The fact that you had to shoot one of the lenses stopped all the way down to f/8, which almost no one would ever do with that camera and lens combo, demonstrates the opposite of what you seem to think it does: it says that under typical use, the images WOULD look different. I'm no partisan in this race, but to pretend that you can always (or even usually) get the exact same results out of both is simply incorrect. That's not to say you can't get great images out of anything from micro-four-thirds to medium format, but they are designed and perform different because they are different. And listen, you can ignore me if you want, but I'm just writing as sincere constructive criticism this because, while I currently watch many of your videos, but will probably avoid them in the future if this is the kind of content you guys want to do. It's neither revealing
Okay.. what according to you would be an optimal test to figure out what he was talking about.
In other words, what would be an optimal photo to shoot with a medium format and right down to micro 4/3 to see if the medium format photo looks different?
Yes, they do. My Canon 5D Mark II broke mid photo shoot and I was in a pinch and needed a new photo/video camera but a new FF wasn’t in the budget. So I opted for the a6500 with the sigma 18-35 f1.8 and even the Mitakon 35mm f0.95, and let me tell you, as good as I got at learning to get the best images out of the sony with white balance, exposure, noise etc. And as much as I tried to convince myself that it was the same, every time I went back and looked at old 5D mark II FF images, they just BLEWWWW them out of the water in terms of dynamic range, noise, clarity and sharpness. However, this is when I’m viewing the images at full resolution on a 27 inch iMac. This is ESPECIALLY true when you’re shooting super wide open with shallow depth of field with nice lenses, and you’ll get way shallower DOF. Even with the f0.95 Mitakon, it just didn’t look as nice as the FF equivalent. And FF makes a big difference when you’re printing. But if you’re shooting for images on social media and such, sure, it doesn’t make that big of a difference. That said, I MUCH prefer the crop sensor on the a6500 for video, but for stills, FF takes the cake for high end imagery.
I’m not angry, but...
1. Should have shot all the photos indoors with even, controllable lighting
2. Should have used a tripod for all the position to be nearly the same
3. Should have used a non-moving subject such as a mannequin
4. Should have taken the different color science of all camera manufacturers into account
Lol if you make test indoor you can't state that all sensor sizes produce similar results.
Better off use mannequin then
good point, however, most of the practical , real life tests happen the way he did it, hand shots, outside, no flash, just as it is, point and shot, before the scene changes. so here we come.
I have seen thousands and thousands of crappy images taken by "serious armature" using the most expensive gears. Those are the ones making the most noise. Keep the good work coming. a thumbs up for you.
solid idea. Would have been nice to have this when I was starting out. May have kept me with APS-C and switch to full frame 2 years ago.
For video I prefer the super 35 vs the larger 35mm full frame. For photography I prefer full 35mm full frame. Mostly for vintage or specialty lenses like the Lensbaby Twist 60 or Zenit lenses. The rest of the 90% time a APSC or DX lens will look great and indistinguishable from a full frame sensor..... within reason.... meaning you can only isolate your subject so much from a 18-55 3.5-5f DX lens vs a 50mm 1.8. Also aperture blade count and shape make a large factor for bokeh. Probably the LEAST important factor is sensor size. Except in low light comparing top new cameras side by side... otherwise the newer cameras usually beat older cameras regardless of sensor size. usually. But for video/cine my fav I is super 35mm since I grew up shooting super 35mm movie film. (Roughly an APSC/DX sensor size.. though slightly larger). A MFT for video just becomes so cramped for existing lenses and harder to get shallow DOF on medium and wide shots... But i can still get what I want 90% of the time from any camera system. :)
If comparing low res daylight photos taken with deep depth of field makes you feel better about not owning a FF or MF camera, knock yourself out.
Do the same test at night, in a nightclub, with a wide open fast lens on each, or blown up to poster size. Suddenly the sensor size will be all too apparent.
"who shoots a portrait at f8?" well its kinda the most common aperature for portraits with flash.. and thats also the most common for portraits...
The medium format covers more area that's all.
The « Medium format look» was first used in analog film photography, where medium format had a film area between 2,7 and 4.5 the size of 35mm. Of course it looked different, and in most cases much better.
Fantastic stuff. The irreverence is fantastic. You are hitting third rails like crazy. Love it.
Not a waste of time, worth the trial, thanks. It just shows that it is not just about the camera/sensor, it what you do with it, plus people have massive opinions, but most of them are based on ignorance. I have both Full Frame and M4/3 cameras, so 90% of the shots are the same, it when you push the limits that you find the slight differences.
You cropped it and changed it to low res. In the next test please don't crop or change the res.
For Facebook, Instagram postings and small size prints it'll look similar without the shallow depth of field.
Also, include rx100 and cellphone cameras, they'll look pretty much the same if you take pics in good light, stop down, change it to low res and crop.
I do wonder a bit about whether heavy crops for pixel peepers could've altered the results, but I think this is a worthwhile demonstration. Equivalent settings will get equivalent results on different formats, lens availability is the biggest difference. (Try finding a cheap 50mm f/1.8 equivalent on any format other than full frame, for example.)
I've tried convincing friends that they *don't* need to switch from their crop sensor cameras to full frame if they just get the right lenses... but sometimes those lenses just plain don't exist and they wind up switching anyway.
Me and my M43 camera (G9) love this video.
You still in Puerto Rico? How do you like it so far?
This topic is something I always wanted to learn more about since I started photography. If anything it opens up a lot of doors for those who want to change camera gears for ergonomics and price 🤙🏾
The reaction you're getting to this is highly predictable. The same thing happens when you confront heavily invested hi-fi snobs with the evidence of well-designed double-blind tests comparing a system that costs, say $5,000 with one that costs $50,000... and no-one can tell them apart. Obviously, you've done the test wrong!
I used to work at an streaming audio service and I had an argument with a dev that said NOBODY could tell the differences between 56/128/320/Lossless as we were trying to decide the compression rates we wanted to launch with. He did a blind test on me and I got them all correct, and he even did one at 148 or some such nonsense and had me guess and I said 150. But I did agree that I am in a VERY small minority and we chose our bit-rates accordingly...the point is there ARE people that can tell the differences in these things, but they are in the very very small percentage. Knowing what the test criteria is is key. In this test of course there is little difference that most can't see since the "Difference ratio" of any quality (much like most music bit rate) change is almost negligible to most people
Oh, and I'd still put my Mamiya RB67 with the right film for the situation against any modern system. If you have the time, that glass and that size of negative is still hard to beat...it's just not convenient and the majority of people couldn't tell the difference anyway, but hey I'm not making images for you. :P
And of course this is the internet and there is no way for me to prove it, but I went and took the test and found it hard at the low resolution but chose them correctly...for this I get nothing and can go back to taking pictures with whatever I have at the moment since I stopped worrying about gear. :)
I've done the same blind test myself, with different bit rates being compared. I could tell 320 from 96 with a little over 90% accuracy, but telling 320 from 150 was harder, I only got 60% right. So, I have an objective reason to prefer 320. However, I simply couldn't distinguish between two hi-systems, both playing the same 320 bit content - even though one cost 10 times more than the other.
To each is their own. Just buy what ever your heart desires; If your budget allows it. 😚😚
You can take great shots with any camera... 100% agree. Photos taken in the middle of day (with a ton of light) look exactly the same... agree. BUT, my experience is that the larger sensors will handle low light (higher ISO) with less noise. Feel free to let me know if I'm wrong?
The real difference is when you get a call from the printing company (my family owns one) or the client to have the photo with more resolution for their print.
15 yrs in the bus …. have yet to receive that call. Even todays M43 cameras are more than capable of fantastic huge prints. Heck- the G9 has an 80MP high res mode- so unless you are planning to crop your files by 93 percent- you should be ok!
I've owned m4/3, apsc, and full frame. They're all able to achieve the same look and I still can't tell the difference (unless pixel peeping), it's just which type/features do you need more. I use full frame the most because I like the f/2.8 zooms for run & gun shooting (there's no apsc f/1.8 zooms nor m4/3 f/1.4).
Know how to take a good photo > Image edit (crop/white balance etc.) > Lens > Camera
+Fstoppers Hi there. Did you ever make the follow-up videos to this? I have been shooting M4/3 for a while now and was considering going back to FF now that Canon has caught up to Olympus. I was curious to see the results of the tests.
Hi great video... it's been a couple of months now, and I was just wondering if you were still planning on making the video with the all the camera prints?
Would be really interesting to see how well they stack up to each other.
Thanks!
A new comment for an old video.
I use both M43 and FF 35mm. I find FF lenses heavy but higher MP and shallow DOF are the main pluses. I have Sony 42mp and 24mp cameras
landscapes benefit from 42mp, 24mp 24mm and 40mm lenses that are fast
give good shallow DOF and great Bokeh. I use M43 for zooms, and teles
since they pack small and carry lite. For low light FF sensors gather more light and so they can go to higher ISO with lower noise than M43, and have
better dynamic range. My Sony A9 takes pictures in almost darkness with my f1.2 lens. I have a Panasonic G9 and its good IQ in good light. I find
with the 42.5mm f1.7 I can get good portraits, and the M43 frame means no cropping in prints. This blended system offers the best of what each
frame size and equipment offer.
But what camera does David Riley use for his cat photography?
In old days we only had to care about three things: the format, the film and the lens quality. That was really easy. The camera bodies for 35 format were almost the same, no great difference in handling. I'm looking at the compo, when I view photos. The technique is second row. You've got a thumb up...
That's why I use aps-c. It's almost never compared 😂
Fullframe still have a huge advantages in night and astrophotography and way shallow dof which is perfect for portrait photography. It really depends on what you shoot.
@@Lccan1990 But the cost is much higher and full frame line lenses are expensive too. For me personally, since I don't shoot professionally for clients and all, aps-c is great.
@@YashMenghani agreed. just buy faster glass or a speedbooster. there is the benefit of autofocus, but at an astronomical cost
@@YashMenghani ya if only hobby then no point go ff
@@Lccan1990 No but even professionally, many people do shoot with aps-c, cause like there isn't a whole lot of difference if you see, people do still shoot amazing milkyway shots from aps-c (Sony a6300 in my case) and if you saw this video, you obviously won't argue about DOF.
YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! I just recently traded my 36MP full frame D810 system in for a 27MP APS-C Fuji X-T3 system. Before you think I'm crazy, I can tell you this: I do not miss the D810 AT ALL!
Fuji glass is the best (IMHO) and I get the sharpest images ever from the new system. I did go through a transition period to get used to the EVF, since I have been using OVF for years. I love the fact that I have a live histogram and have learned to expose with that (I can safely shoot to the right without clipping and preserve shadows...post processing is a breeze)
It isn't the camera or sensor size...it's the glass that will make the difference! (and of course, comp skills are a requirement as well)
Brilliant
At the end of the day of your happy with your photos who cares what others say.👍👏👏
where's the sequel for this video?
Can you make a video about the difference between full sensor and crop sensor images?
ICB Productions - yes a6400 with sigma 56mm f1.4 vs a7iii with 85mm f1.8 would be great
I have two friends who shoot with Fuji medium format. Their work looks great! One is a Canon shoot and one is a Nikon shooter, but when they shoot with the Fuji the images look better. Scientific tests are great but we talking about a art form. The numbers don't matter its the end result. I love the look of the Fuji.
To each, is their own.
Why dont you talk to photographers that actually use medium format cameras and ask them why they choose medium format sensor cameras over others. Also, Karl Taylor has several videos on his page comparing medium format to 35mm full frame that might be worth taking a look at (don't worry, people argue on his videos as well).
Karl Taylor did use the cheapest zoom kit lens he could find and put it up against a prime. He rigged the test in favour of the medium format.
"Why dont you talk to photographers that actually use medium format cameras and ask them why they choose medium format sensor cameras over others". Because most off them are biased. They think it is/was the best. But if you actually put the numbers together and compare apples to apples: MF only wins with resolution (above 50MP).
@Neil1770053 The sad thing is, the Hasselblad would have won anyway, but it was a case diminishing returns, where you have to spend a hell of a lot more money for tiny improvements.
The new 100MP sensor (and the 150MP 645 sensor) do move the game on significantly from Full Frame, but what you're effectively getting is a bigger image rather than a camera with a new type of look. The medium format look was definitely a thing in the days of film, now, it doesn't exist. It's a bit like Leica users bleating on about "the Leica look". It was a thing back in the film days, now, it doesn't exist.
@Neil1770053 sweet... unless your fetish is body pheromone
@@UCreations Dude, you're just making up BS with your generalisations. There are enough official Fuji X photographers wo both use APS-C and Fuji's semi-medium format. There are tool that work best in some cases, whereas they won't work as great in others. Larger sensors will always allow for more tonal details, better colour rendition, etc, there's just no working around for that. The question is what you want or need personally.
All popular sensor sizes (mft, super 35mm/aps-c, and 35mm/ff) have their compromises and (dis-)advantages, and just because someone uses sth. with joy and explains why he/she can't get the same images with another system, that doesn't make the tech you use bad.
You are the one turning this whole thing into an argument.
I was looking for exact same test, i think angle of view may have diff outcome but its something that can be done with any sensor i guess. Full frame or medium format shines in LOW LIGHT, thats the only difference. Aps-c camera with IBIS is almost as good as full frame
i love this type of videos that you make man ... so diffrent !
I think when most people say "Medium Format has a different look" they are referring to film, not digital. Digital medium format sensors aren't very large in comparison.
I see your point regarding the film days' medium format vs. 35mm. But this is where I beg to differ. Forget sensor size comparisons for a moment - even photos taken by the same company, same sensor size, but *different* bodies can yield differing *results* . Take the 5D Mark IV vs. the R6 for instance; Both bodies are made by the same company, houses the same full-frame sensor size, but they produce very different *looks* . A more relevant example would be to perhaps bring in an expert who have hosted photo-art galleries. I have interviewed photographers who shot with medium format cameras vs. full frame cameras. And they all came to a collaborative conclusion: Medium format cameras produces significantly better images than than their lower megapixel counter-part. It gets extremely evident when you put up the *prints* side by side. It isn't just about the megapixel count, but rather, there is just this *look* about medium format sensors/ cameras that produces such distinction.
what if you also cropped all the images to fit the medium format ratio and see if your viewers can tell the difference. And perhaps dont do any cropping or resizing and see what the viewers prefer.
@5:39 did you do a video about the dynamic range? For me that matters the most for the look of a photo than bokeh etc.
hahahaha I love this! and I for one truly appreciate honest reviews and test like these because It helps me make the right decisions on my future purchases thank you fstoppers keep up the good work!
In general conditions there is pretty much no difference, agreed, what matters though is the size of the pixels and the correlation to light sensitivity. Bigger sensor, more space=bigger pixels ergo better sensitivity to light. Do a night photography or low light shots and there is where the bigger sensors should excel. I am really curious because sony a7iii or a7sii has great low light capabilities but micro 4/3 in bmpcc4k offers better performance because it is easier to cool it down than full frame. Every camera and its sensor represents a trade off.
I'm here to watch the gear nerds lose their @&>/!
Preston House the funny thing is, they are arguing about nothing.
The comments are more entertaining
Me too 🥤🍿
@@peter_shadow7559 gear nerds are fun to mess with
Can’t remember I’d you talked about the difference relative to print output? When comparing my full frame Canon 5DS to my medium format Phase One P65+ at 300 DPI at 16” x 20” (actual prints) I could detect minor differences but both very satisfying and salable. The difference increased at larger print sizes with the medium format being the preferred image, but the full frame was still excellent. However, when compared to less than a full framed sensor, the print quality difference at the above mentioned specs was massive. But all the images looked good as web sized final outputs.
does Expensive Camera Straps Increase Your Camera Image Quality?
Absolutely brother. If you're not using a Peak Design or Black Rapid strap, you're not gonna get any likes on Instagram.
@@beardedjedi7080 thanks for the tip, since i use peak design strap i can get 80 extra likes on my posts
An encouraging test that shows you that you don't always need the latest and biggest sensor.
I could have told you the canon 6d was superior. 2012 in the house!
To quote Leonardo, " first you had my interest, Now you have my attention". looking forward to the next video . new subscriber here!