The first 1000 people to use the link will get a free trial of Skillshare Premium Membership: skl.sh/jamespopsys04211 Lawn mower was worth the wait - struggling with straight lines though...
Isn't showing the zooms in comparison an option? Am I really supposed to notice the difference in noise between two photos merged into one video on a phone screen? I won't even notice the difference between these photos, even if you use a 5-year-old phone instead of a 4/3 micro camera. The video has no value; it isn't even worth the time I spent writing this comment."
Pixel density doesn't impact noise, the total light gathered impacts the signal-to-noise ratio SNR. You are thinking of videos only, but this depends on how the sensor downsizes to the video resolution. For stills, the pixel density has no bearing on noise.
Me every time James apologizes for not being outdoors: “Wow, my day ruined, I only watch for the adventurous backgrounds. Nothing to do with the charming, beardy man in front of the camera giving me good advice on photography. I can’t believe he would do this again.”
Being that, neither you nor I (at 64), think we have a chance at a Nat Geo spread yet we can still wow most with our MFT pics, the weight of the tools we use and, my bank account, are what matter most! Good call sir :-)
As a 62 year old amateur photographer with a bad rotator cuff I love the less weight advantage of my G9. Hardly ever use a tripod. I do miss the low light advantage of a full frame since I do some sports photography at night but with this hobby I'm very happy with my G9.
I have a bad shoulder as well, I just got a z50 with the 16-55 and the 50-250. The camera and two lenses weigh less than my 70-200 f2.8. Camera and lens quality have come so far that I am not wanting in anyway with this little guy!
I agree but one thing I appreciate with m4/3 is that in a small shoulder bag I can carry 7 lens and a couple of camera bodys. My old canon rebel wouldn't even enter with just one lens, and the weight is reasonable.
i love how 4/3 photograph try to convince themselves lol... i had a G9 now i'm on a R5 its day and night, its more expensive but panasonic 4/3 is trash PURE TRASH
@@lnz971 Try useing your G9 in a church for instance, flash/tripod,s prohibited. This is where M4/3 is far superior, side by side, you coudn,t get the image, I can, better depth of field, superb IBIS,(worth 4/5 stop,s), think again.
@@steveworthington930 Are you Joking M4/3 in low light situation is far superior??? My R5 have a way better ibis ( r5 and lense are stabilized 8 stop ), Lenses are way sharper and have a better depth of field buddy than 4/3... let's not talk about the worst autofocus system ( panasonic ). You really don't know your subject man
THANK YOU for bringing up the fact that smaller sensors have a depth of field advantage when you want everything in focus. No one ever brings this up and I feel like it’s a HUGE benefit of smaller sensors. In fact most people bring up how full frame cameras have a shallow depth of field as a good thing because that means more bokeh. I certainly am usually trying to get more of the scene in focus, not less, and I think most photographers are the same. Too me, arguing about which sensor size is best is like arguing which focal length is best. 24mm isn’t inherently better than 85mm or vice versa. It entirely depends on what kind of photos you’re trying to take, and like everything in photography it’s a direct trade off between one capability and another. Great video!
It is the same to me. I am not doing landscape but ordinary family pictures. I usually want the whole family in focus not only the left eye of one of the members. Consequently I am used to stop down my MFT a bit.
I would not call this an "advantage", because you can just stop down on a full frame lens. A 25mm MFT lens set to f/1.8 collects the same amount of light and has the same depth of field as a 50mm full frame lens set to f/3.5, simply because the entrance pupil has the same diameter. (25/1.8 = 13.8mm, 50/3.5 = 14.3mm). The advantage of full frame is that you can actually open up that entrance pupil to 27.8mm and collect almost 4 times the amount of light (losing depth of field in the process). To me the advantage of MFT is not having to carry lenses like the Lumix S Pro 24-70 F/2.8, which checks in a 935g (> 2 lbs). Or the Lumix S Pro 50mm f/1.4 which is even heavier (over double the weight of the Nikon 50mm AF-S f/1.4). Also, for some types of photography (e.g. travel or documentary photography) it's also an advantage that you don't draw nearly as much attention to yourself with a smaller camera and lens.
@@ge48421 while the two lenses and setting you reference do have the same aperture size and field of view and therefore let through the same amount of light, the MFT sensor needs 1/4 as much light to expose the same image compared to the full frame camera . So while in the example you gave both photos would have the same depth of field (and in one sense would be letting in the same light) the advantage of MFT is then that your shot is at a 4X faster shutter speed (maybe 1/125 instead of 1/30). Of course, a smaller sensors needs less light because it collects less information, so that’s an advantage of a full frame sensor (more info means it can have 4X the megapixel count and look the same, or it could have 4X bigger pixels and therefore more dynamic range/less noise, or do a bit of both). As I said earlier, everything in photography is a direct mathematical trade off. People have preferences on what trade offs are worth it for them, but there’s no one solution that’s definitively best. I like APSC because it’s a happy balance for me, but others will prefer other formats. To each their own!
@@ge48421 Again, if you need bigger depth of field you compensate the noise advantage of FF just because you don't need to step down as much. In case you need shallower depth of field the FF gives a clear advantage, of course. You only need to pay much more money and carry a lot of more wight. The same discussion is possible the opposite way round and blame the FF as a small sensor format against the Medium format sensors. All systems are compromises the question is what you like to give in and what you want to get in exchange.
@@johnsilver9676 I think the op’s point is that he doesn’t want to carry/pay more for things that won’t be used. If the depth of field and noise on a crop sensor is enough for someone then the FF sensor would be a waste. With how good cameras have gotten in the past few years, no half decent photographer should have issues with DOF or low light with practically any system, barring the most extreme use cases.
I'm not particularly a landscape photographer, but if I do landscapes I practically never do it at night and only rarely at dusk or dawn. I usually do my landscapes at daylight, preferably when there is nice weather. I hate cold and rain. Even if it is cloudy or foggy or even a bit drizzly, I never have the need to go over 400 ISO with my MFT (I use Olympus) at an aperture which allows for deep depth of field (in landscape I usually want that) while maintaining a short enough shutter speed to not blur the picture. In fact, most of my landscapes are shot with base ISO. I see a use for full frame camera when you are into astro-photography, specializing in low-light photography or in taking pictures of dark objects, or if you tend to crop from your pictures extensively. Since I do nothing of this, a full frame camera wouldn't benefit me.
Sounds like many of us photographers would fit your description of what they do. And if there is a very occasional circumstance where mft has to struggle (very low light etc) then it is up to the photographer to use her/his skills and make the best of it!
Most computer monitors and phones aren't even 4K in 2022. So, since 4K = 8mp, I think any camera with 16 - 20mp or more is enough for 99% of today's applications.
I really wish people would stop living in the myth that a larger sensor always gives you better results, because it doesn't. The main benefits of a larger sensor are lower noise at higher ISO's and more dynamic range. You can of course also get a higher resolution, but that will only be of benefit if you do large prints or if you tend to crop a lot. Aside from these things it's the lens(es) that matter the most for image quality.
I appreciate your comment so much! So many people I come across are full frame fanboys and don't understand that every camera have their own use. That is why I appreciate APSC and MFT, because they are more reasonable price and cheaper lens. Plus the focal length extends, and it is lightweight!
This the the most comprehensive explanation of crop factor equivalence I've heard yet. Full frame isn't inherently cleaner, it just has more range. But sacrificing depth of field isn't always the best option, I find that for macro work especially, alot of times mft is better because I can gather the same amount of light, but double the depth of field.
You're not getting as much light though. You're just using more gain to reach the same ISO number. That's why there's more noise. You're amplifying both the signal and the noise but not improving the signal to noise ratio. You could get the same result on full frame by turning the ISO number up and the f-number down.
@@nmcdoug but when shooting macro, you're locked in to certain aperture values. Too open and good luck getting anything more than a sliver in focus. Too narrow and you get diffraction. Mft allows for greater depth of field without diffraction
@@nmcdoug I mean it depends on the lens, obviously but in my experience, and with my macro lenses, that's not the case. I can shoot f13 on my mft gear with little to no diffraction, and any more than f16 on my ff lens, its very soft.
Good points here. I have a pana 43 and sony FF setup myself. I would add one thing: If you mostly shoot jpgs and DON'T edit your photos alot, you'd be fine with MFT. If you shoot raw and edit your files extensively, the need for FF soon rises. In Lightroom I find the FF raw-files can handle so much more "beating" especially on the color side. Changing WB in post for example. Or changing the RGB-channels. Thanks for the video and cheers.
Thanks for this clear summary, James. I'd like to add that MFT cameras have much better IBIS, allowing for longer handheld images at night. Olympus's Hi-Res mode (maybe Panasonic's as well?) also increases the dynamic range. These partially compensate for MFTs low light ISO weakness, however, not so much when there are moving objects and you don't want a blur effect. For me, the price and size/weight of MFT cameras make them my generally preferred choice, but I could see experimenting with a larger sensor sometime in the future.
Good point. How much of an issue the camera’s performance is depends on the ease of correction. If you’re going to work it in post anyway, it’s less of a differentiator.
You have been perfectly clear, and this is the most sensible comparison between the two sensors I have encountered. It provides a compelling argument for the continued utility of M43 cameras: the lenses. I love my collection of lenses, mostly Panasonic/Leica, for their size/weight and overall optical qualities. I don’t see myself trying to replicate them for a larger sensor camera (even if I had the spare cash).
Interesting video! I prefer the APS-C system because of the 3:2 aspect ratio and the better ISO handling than the MFT. It’s the best middle ground if you don’t need or can’t afford a full frame. Also i can use any EF lens on my canon aps-c.
Yes, you have to pick what suits your taste. I usually crop to at least 4/3 although there are certain photos that suit the wider aspect ratio. More often though I would be cropping away the extra width.
Before I listen to you I’m compelled to say I’ve spent years listening to many landscape photographers especially here on you tube saying the same thing that “gear doesn’t matter and it doesn’t matter what size the sensor is” interestingly, now, many of these same people are now using Fuji gfx or similar with larger sensors! Lol. In reality there are differences, pixel size (and not necessarily total resolution) makes a very big difference especially re noise characteristics, etc, etc.
There is then another can of worms opened up when you consider equivalence. If both lenses are f2.8 lenses then the M4/3s is wide open and lenses usually perform worst at their extremes, whilst the full frame lens has been closed down by 2 stops which will likely produce sharper results. That then also goes someway to explaining the weight differences, if they had f5.6 zooms for full frame they would be around the same weight as f2.8 zooms for M4/3 Its all a giant headache when you start thinking about it all :D
I've got the S5 and G9 and a couple of lenses for each. I like both cameras and, as you say here, they serve different purposes at different times, but if I had to pick one it'd still be the G9 despite being older. It's still the best handling digital camera I've ever used.
A world renowned photographer, who will remain nameless, took a family portrait of us 20 some odd years ago with an Olympus 3 megapixel camera. The 11x17 print is grainy, colourful and it’s wonderful. He captured a very funny moment when my 2yr old son tried to bite our older daughter’s arm. A full frame camera would not have improved the picture. Just saying. James is a good photographer.
Appreciate these reviews in a time when sony and canon are pushing to make FF look like a must.. after they both failed with their aps-c lineups; basically they were slapped in the face by fuji and even MFT, so now theyre selling sensors by the squate foot to prove their superiority. People should understand what's real and what is pure marketing.
As a hobbyist I have GX9 but I found your video fascinating. It was very useful and I learned a lot. I love your style and delivery. I’m not keen on tripods either. Thank you James.
I currently shoot with a 1" sensor on the Sony RX10 IV. I'm very pleased with the results. In fact, I've been able to take better pics than even I had with APS-C cameras. I was always nervous about going down to a smaller sensor but found I didn't need to sacrifice quality when shooting with a 1" sensor. Also software has really narrowed the gap when you can easily get rid of noise or boost resolution.
I use a 1inch sensor TZ100 for multi-day backpacking trips and in good light with lowish contrast it’s as good as my MFT. And HDR and pano mode make up for most of its other problems. But I do miss shallow DoF for closeups and it is much noisier in low light.
Love watching your stuff, just bought myself a G9 due to getting sick of carrying my FF gear about (weight) but I will be keeping it for low light situations, keep up the good work James
I've shot with Lumix MFT kit alongside full frame and APS-C DSLRs for years, and really there's so little difference in image quality, I've often had images from both systems mixed up in an edit from a shoot, so even I can't tell which is which. Sometimes the Lumix images are sharper, partly down to the depth of field thing going on, but also because the Lumix lenses are newer designs, optimised for a digital sensor, whereas quite a few DSLR lenses are still older optical designs for film resolution. But the biggest plus point of Lumix kit is I can't always be arsed lugging FF DSLR kit around on some days, on some jobs. Big win for MFT!
When i was sailing on a Viking river cruise with my Panasonic GX8, I found that image wise, it lacked nothing image wise because it along with an Olympus 12-100 and the incredible image stabilization, I could photograph in light levels that were impossible for my Nikon equipment. The GX8 has such incredible versatility that is unmatched in full frame. I would have had to carry a tripod for many of my shots for my Nikons. Plus what you see is what you get.
Having made the jump to full frame (s5) - this is really interesting to me. Like the technical background - and the practical implications - thanks James 👍
This is exactly why I have stuck with 4/3 and micro4/3 since about 2005. Granted I bought my first SLR at the age of 15 and money for lenses was tight... but the 4/3 ecosystem complemented my outdoors and hiking lifestyle and that is why I have stayed. The size/weight advantage is worth so much more when you are on a week long hike and the nearest fire road is 25 km away... Thank you for a balanced comparison. Also, the IBIS on a camera with a smaller sensor tends to perform better and that alone may offset image degradation due to noise, depending on subject and conditions of course.
Good video! I think something that often gets overlooked by gear nerds (I'll include myself in that category) is that regardless of brand or format, we have dang good gear these days. It's not too long ago that many of us were awed by 6 - 8mp cameras that technically can't compare with current equipment. Yet they produced some beautiful photos. And as an old codger I can recall shooting ASA (in the US ISO was once called ASA) 25, 50, 64 film. 35mm film at ISOs of even 400 could get pretty darn grainy even at relatively small print sizes. And how did anyone ever take a good action sports photo without state of the art AF?
Late reply, but you wrote an interesting comment. Yes, the gear today is excellent, and the choices to be made is endless. I often find the pictures made by the top notch equipment too crisp and clear. In many situations it's preferable, but for some styles of pictures they lack the needed mood. I still love my old 5Dmk2, and it suits me well for my "kind of artistic" way of shooting. It's not great, but good enough. I'm a gear nerd myself, but I don't care about new stuff. Good old manual lenses are my hunting ground. Regarding sport photos with manual lenses, the photographer must predict the path of movement, and pre set everything for the spot where the photos are taken. Then spray and pray. The % of keepers are of course low.
I am quite grateful to you for this video. Now, instead of trying to explain the differences between M43 and FF (especially given the current FF mania) to those who inquire (ne challenge) regarding the differences between the formats, I can just refer them to this video. Well done, laddie!
A couple Lumix embassadors I sometimes watch on RUclips always say that the low light performance on paper might be worse, but the smaller Micro Four Thirds sensors often have such amazing stabilization that they can get sharp handheld shots at a quarter of a second so it doens't matter much. Personally I use APSC and I don't mind Noise one bit, I almost exclusively shoot in Black and White and noise adds character if you ask me.
As a sports photographer, I'll take a good 300mm lens on an APS-C body over a 400mm lens on on a full frame body any day of the week. The savings in weight and money is astounding. Couple that 300mm lens on an APS-C body with a 70-200 on a full frame body, and I get a hugely flexible kit without breaking the bank, or my back. Cameras are just tools. Use the one(s) that best fits your job(s). Excellent video as always. Hope the lawnmower works out.
I've personally found that FT just owns everything else for daytime telephoto work, especially Olympus lenses, for size (small!), sharpness, and focus speed, especially in event shooting outdoors.
you forgot to mention one very simple solution for the "landscape-situation" in dim light ---- a tripod !!! With this item the FF camera can be used with quite low ISO numbers and also open aperture and will be superior to the m4/3 system!
This is honestly the best comparison between the two systems. So often folks ignore the weight difference and only concentrate on noise. I own both FF and m4/3 and for 95% of shooting I do m4/3 for me personally offers a better balance.
Fabulous video! Very clear, informative and helpful. This has helped me a lot as I contemplate full frame. For now, I’ll stay with micro 4/3 because of the weight advantage and my use case (environmental portraiture). And I’m pretty happy with the shallow depth of field with the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and Panasonic-Leica 15mm f1.7. By the way, I love your channel, it’s one of my very favourites!
I liked this video a lot. Most people do not understand this M43 - full frame ‘game’ correctly. It is all true what you said. One way to overcome the costs of the extra full frame camera, is to buy faster lenses. The challenge though is that they may not be available. Some camera brands go this direction: e.g Fujifilm offer the 50 mm f1.0. What I am sometimes asking myself is, if the autofocus capabilities are connected to the sensor size. The cameras with the best capabilities in this area are Sony and Canon for with their full frame cameras.
James: Somehow this popped up front page and I enjoyed your information immensely. I'm a. big G9 user and now I know why I like it so much in comparison to the big boys. Thanks for this one video especially. A loyal subscriber, Jim
I've waited for this video. I use the G9. Went to Uganda with only 3 lenses and of course, had to carry everything on my back. After 10 days, every little bit in weight reduction is a blessing. But also the video capabilities of the camera are stellar. I don't do a lot of low light shooting, do bike ride a lot, and we travel. I've thought, if the G9 dies, what would I replace it with. The S5 likely, but still, the cost of getting a G9 would be less and since I have lenses for it, well... Thanks for an honest review.
This is the first time I’ve heard an explanation of equivalence not being used to argue that small sensors are bad. Everybody else seems to assume that less depth of field is always a good thing, when clearly it is not for some types of photography. Having said that, I am loving the extra dynamic range, and latitude to lift shadows in raw files from my S5 vs. my G9.
Yes, where I found more DoF being a life saver is when I do macro photography. Doing macro with my m4/3 camera is so much more pleasant than doing it with my FF system.
TLDR: 2 years from now "I GOT THE FUJI GFX100! Great video, i actually made the switch over to Full Frame from Fuji, because of capturing action in low light, but damn the lenses....
Some great points here James, especially regarding Equivalence. The other good point well made was with regards to lens size/weight. That's where the differences really become obvious in most cases.
What you forgot to mention is that a lot of MFT cameras have amazing image stabilization, meaning you can hand hold at much slower shutter speeds and still get clear photos. You can go down to 1 second or more on a lot of Olympus 4/3.
Well done you've hit the 'equivalency' nail on the head. There are so many photographic "experts" out there who just don't get it. My view is the issue comes from the incorrect and confusing terms "Full frame" and "Crop frame". APSC, 35mm, Medium format, are much more accurate thanks.
Great video, very helpful. I own the G9 which is a fantastic camera. Wish I had one of the Lumix full frame versions though, like you. One thing I have found though is something like Topaz DeNoise (and many other similar apps) can really dial down the low light noise from my G9. Yes, it might be a pain to have to do that but batch processing is available and it really works well. Pros are likely to have a FF camera in their arsenal but those of us who can’t afford it or don’t have stronger bodies to carry them around do have other alternatives.
I appreciate your nuanced approach to a topic that many m43 shooters aren’t able to address without trying to spin the facts a little. That said, your 70-200 F4 needs to go on a diet. The Canon RF 70-200 F4 is 695g, almost half the weight of your 70-200 F4 monster and therefore much closer in weight to your F5.6 equivalent m43 zoom.
Excellent video, but the equivalences on depth of field and aperture between ff and micro4/3 are due to field of view, not the aperture itself. For example, say that you're shooting a 50mm lens on both cameras. On the micro43 one because of the sensor size, you'd have an equivalent of a 100mm lens attached to it. If you shoot both at say f2 from the same distance, you'd obtain the exact same depth of field, but the field of view on the micro43 would be much tighter. So, if you wanted the same field of view, you'd have to double the distance with your subject with the micro43 camera. This is, in practise what causes the difference in the depth of field, the fact that you're always at double the distance from your subject when comparing to a ff sensor.
All well said. I knew all this before I "upgraded" to full frame - especially the fact that you only get better noise levels when you are working at the limit and you can't open the aperture any further. I still did upgrade and in many scenarios it does not chnage a thing regarding the output. But when you need it it's great. Also I just like working with the same "specs" as in the old 35mm film days. p.s. 1.3kg for a 70 - 200 F4??? The Canon RF version comes in at half the weight and quality wise it's perfect.
Solid video but for those of you who are singing praises to crop sensor cameras...I’ve never been happier switching to full frame. Image quality, dynamic range, and with IBIS(thank you mirrorless) I can shoot hand held at base ISO with outstanding results. I think the argument holds up if your comparing crop sensor bodies to full frame DSLR’s.
I often encounters full frame photographers around me who never even considered a 70-200mm lens, either the f4 or f2.8, due to them not seeing themselves lugging the behemoth around. A Lumix G9 II with a 35-100mm f/2.8 (70-200mm f/5.6 FFEQ) is bang on 1kg (less if you chose the OM-1). Although a mere 400g less than an A7 IV + 70-200mm f/4 combo, but if you carry other lenses in your bag, the differences add up quick.
Thanks for the comparison! I find the added 2kg for a fullframe kit and the more bulky packing size a big hassle when motorcycling. Having the same lenses for my GH5 it's about a 2.4kg haul but packs away quite nicely even in a tank bag. So, with that in mind, I'll not soon go over to FF. I do however miss the low light capabilities but as said earlier the tradeoff is too big. Thanks James!
It's nice to see the ambivalence over dof equivalence being mentioned. Not everybody wants it shallow, as is often repeated over and over. I'm just an ordinary consumer and I like to be able to see the contents of my images, that's why I'm taking them ;) I settled for apsc as a good middle ground. Thx for your thoughts James!
Very helpful, thank you. I'm considering switching from full frame to micro four thirds because I'm missing shots by not carrying the very heavy long zoom. This has helped me think about key aspects of the decision.
Switch! Because now with DxO and other the m43 system reduced the distance between the photographic results. You can shoot with 6400-12800 ISO and use noise reduction.
This was immensely helpful to me. I've been wondering about the difference for years watching you now and just never looked into it in detail. Thanks for putting so much detail into this.
This is why I like APS-C sensors and always recommend it for people looking to get into photography. Starting on neither extreme while you learn is a big help as you figure out what you like to photograph and your style of photography. Keep note of the limitations that you frequently encounter. Do you find you need more dynamic range or your low-light photos are too noisy? Move to full frame. Find that you keep leaving your camera at home because it's a hassle to lug on hikes? Move into Micro 4:3 and cut weight. Or you may find that APS-C is just right and you get some the image quality benefits of a larger sensor with the some weight (and cost) savings of a smaller sensor.
I've used Lumix cameras for the past 10 years and still have the G7. I recently bought a Sony full frame for night landscape photography and I'm very happy with it, but I've found I've gone back to the G7 more and more when out walking due to weight. Unfortunately I sold the best of my Panasonic lenses. I really appreciate this video James and it's explained a lot about the sensor differences. Thank you.
I just love you videos, James. They are quirky, funny BUT full of information. I ahve to assume that it is the You Tube experience that removes any possibility of the average moretal being able to see the differiences that you highlight. Maybe, we are supposed to pause your video and scritinize the picture. If so please tell us, I love your dialogue so just continue to listen to what you say. Also, if you were to highlight the areas that show the terrible noise, for example, that you were referring to, it would be fabulously beneficial as a learning tool.
Slight physics of optics thing - the f-number is the aperture and is defined as focal length divided by iris diameter, hence the f-slash designator. And it doesn't care what size the image is (the sensor size). If it is f/4 on a 20mm lens, that lets the same amount of light through as on a 200mm lens. If you were to take a full frame 50mm lens and a MFT 50mm lens, both set to f/4, the amount of light would be the same, identical but the iris diameters would not be. When we go equivalence, the MFT 25mm lens vs the 50mm full frame lens, then f/4 becomes 25/4 = 6.25mm diameter iris and 50/4 = 12.5mm diameter. So whilst the aperture number is a direct measure of the amount of light (for the exposure solution) it does affect the hyperfocal distance and hence the depth of field - because we are using lenses of different focal length (it's not just the aperture).
Wonderful video with a very reasonable explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of sensor sizes. I have a fairly different use case, but as a street photographer camera size and a light pack are still very important. The depth of field advantage of a m4/3 or smaller sensor is also a very big advantage for something like street photography. Great work.
Great review James and Spot on. Last year before the dreaded lurgy hit us, i ran an A7R3 with all the GM glass, and yes it was nice to have and yes i could crop in massively when shooting sports etc, however weight was the issue, i started to not take it out with me, which is no use to anybody, i always reached for my G9 or OM10 mk3 as the results were as good or close as i wanted. I sold it all kept the M4/3 and everythings cool. Will i buy a FF again, maybe but unless i want to take pictures of my feet in the bedroom i wont make this decision till lockdowns fully off. My honest view of FF and the main bugbear with Mirrorless full frames is the sensors are like Dysons vacs, every time i went out i had to check it and do the customary Visible dust swab, something ive yet to do with my M4/3. Keep up the good work, and keep ya eyes out for the dreaded dust gremlins :). I dare to think what MF would be like ughhhhh
Really interesting, thank you for this. Even if I do not fully understand every technical detail, your explanations are more than clear enough so I get the gist and it is helpful stuff.
The resolution benefit of larger sensors is starting to crumble with things like super resolution AI algorithms that upscale images to much higher resolutions for printing without obvious artifacts or loss in detail.
Great comparison. Sensor size is important but each system does have its strengths and weaknesses. Understanding those will help you make an intelligent choice for your situation.
Hello. I also use both systems (Oly and Sony) and I like them both. Both has advantages and disadvantages. There is never mentioned dynamic range difference. And in most cases IBES, high res. results and read out speed is on MFT side.
Great comparison. Such noise at ISO1600 with "latest" M43 sensor. Might be still OK for very low ISO, but it is hardly any practical in more than just an landscapes use.
in that DoF equation, one key part left out is the fact of distance-to-subject to "equally" fill the frame which results in larger DoF on smaller sensors... something many forget about when discussing this subject and the REAL reason of DoF effect.
Fantastic and accurate comparison. So many people miss the photographic equivalent comparison. As for weight, Sony E mount with the fantastic Tamron lenses can get you close in weight to a 4/3 system on FF. Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 paired with the 28-200 f/2.8-5.6 is just around a KG total for both lenses. They have done an amazing job with their latest e mount lenses and hopefully they release them for other mirrorless mounts.
Didn't see much difference between my Canon aps-c DSLR and a full frame one (also Canon) without going into too much of a deep pixel-peep-mode. In general: in 'normal' circumstances, and besides depth-of-field, there isn't much difference.
Hey James, here is me sitting with my newly bought Canon EOS R6... 20mp :D I was thinking a lot about getting the R5 but then decided to save the 2800$ and buy one or two of the new RF mount lenses with that money instead. My reasoning was (after a loooong thought about it) Is 45mp better than 20mp? YES!, is 20mp really low for a high end Mirrorless Camera? YES , Will 45mp make my pictures 2.25 times better (or less shit) ? i dont think so. Will the 2800$ make my pictures twice as good? I dont think so either. Technically i could have afforded the R5, but... - im not a professional working photographer like you are. :-) If you read this far - THANKS for the very inpirational videos you create, i felt for a long time "im doing it wrong" by prefering to walk somewhere and take pictures along the way instead of going on location for 8h for "the perfect shot"... yet i always feel i could use some practice to train my eye to see "things" - and your style defeinitely helps me in spotting interesting landscape's. Plus your humor is always great ;-) So thank you anyway - your work is greately apprechiated! (i hope you dont mind my bad grammar, im not a native english speaker)
Actually, if I would buy a full frame camera, I would buy a Sony 7S camera with the 12 MP sensor. That would give the maximum of theoretical advantage of full frame in low light situations. For everything else, I'm very content with my Olympus.
I think I got it: you halve the focus, square the ISO, make it shudder quickly, sacrifice a field of fish and chips and loose half the weight. I know now, I should have gone with Micro 4/3, but at the time I decided on a camera, I did not understand the conversions between the systems. This is really useful information in a nutshell. No need to excuse for being indoors: we had snow, rain and blistering sunshine here in the last few days. More like portrait or product photography weather. Or macro photography of the various insects which froze in the cellar over the winter :)
As usual, thanks for posting. One thing to get out of the way--why don't we quit using the misleading term "full frame" as that refers to 135 format which was considered to be "small" format back in the film days. How about we just call it 135 format? Regarding high-ISO noise, as you point out, it doesn't really matter that much. "Real" (as opposed to "technical") IQ is primarily a function of composition/focus/exposure, and noise generally presents as "grain," which can actually enhance the look of the image (I very often apply film looks in post as it can make the image appear more "natural" and compelling). Also, with DxO's DeepPRIME noise reduction, I can more than compensate for my G9's couple of stops higher ISO noise should I choose to do so. Regarding DoF, it's far more common (at least in my experience) to want more DoF, not less, so advantage MFT there (plus I can easily get as shallow as I want, especially with my f/0.95). Modern lenses (high-end and even entry-level) render so ridiculously well that images can be too sharp. 4K TVs can almost be painful to watch sometimes (although I do use a 4K monitor to edit). I'm not saying we should return to pictorialism, but current tech allows us to produce image "quality" well beyond the limits of human visual acuity to discern and when you find yourself doing ridiculous things like pixel peeping, you end up being one of those people who don't listen to music, they listen to how well they think their system is reproducing the music. Not seeing the forest for the trees... It would be interesting to print the same images from the G9 and S5 (or borrow an S1R the throw more MPs into the fray) and see if one is "better" than the other (or you can can tell the difference). You size/weight comparison is also the reason I chose the G9 over a larger-sensor rig (and after decades of 35mm SLR film experience, I also now prefer 4/3 to 3/2 most of the time). In my case, it's even more critical, as I use my Leica 100-400 a lot, and if an "equivalent" 200-800 even existed for 135, it would be huge and cost more than a car (and weigh nearly as much)! It doesn't do any good to have lenses that are too big for travel... The bottom line is that different systems are more suitable for different situations--neither of these formats is better than the other and they both can produce amazing images in the right hands.
Hello ddsdss. Excellent comments. While I "only" own mft cameras so have no personal experience with other systems..(and so-called full frame can be thought of as a cropped sensor from say a large or medium format...ouch that must hurt to hear of you are a full framer) I recall a number of Lumix ambassadors saying prior to Panasonic adding the larger "unnamed" format with it's S series that if you have lens X with f1.7 then it really isn't worth getting a lens with the same focal distance that has f1.4...the difference in IQ is not enough to justify the purchase. Fast forward to 2020 and these same Lumix Ambassadors have bought an S1 or S5 for, at times, a marginal difference...also given post processing options. Something strange going on. IMHO I wonder if the same thing is going on in videography. Most content is being watched on screens, often with a max 1080p!, that are no bigger than 13inches. Yet videographers "must have 8k with a gazillion frames per second"... I wonder if there is an echo chamber there among videographers who have fallen for some camera manufacturers ruse of that you must have 8k....
Lets also not forget the evolution in post-processing technology to counter the noise performance differences of the cameras. This really helps for the micro 4/3rds cameras when needing to use higher ISO - take the Topaz products and DxO products, which are supreme. You couple that with techniques like expose-to-the-right (obviously not available in every situation, but many) and you have a recipe for super clean and detailed images no matter what sensor size you use.
Thanks for this James. I’m fairly new to your channel, been watching loads of your videos. I went from an APS-C sensor to a 1” sensor bridge camera a while back (for financial reasons), and this has stopped me going down the “if I get this it will make my shots better” rabbit hole… for now, anyway!
The first 1000 people to use the link will get a free trial of Skillshare Premium Membership: skl.sh/jamespopsys04211
Lawn mower was worth the wait - struggling with straight lines though...
Just adjust it in post :)
@@Ruffian_Xion You beat me to it!
Isn't showing the zooms in comparison an option? Am I really supposed to notice the difference in noise between two photos merged into one video on a phone screen? I won't even notice the difference between these photos, even if you use a 5-year-old phone instead of a 4/3 micro camera. The video has no value; it isn't even worth the time I spent writing this comment."
Pixel density doesn't impact noise, the total light gathered impacts the signal-to-noise ratio SNR. You are thinking of videos only, but this depends on how the sensor downsizes to the video resolution. For stills, the pixel density has no bearing on noise.
Me every time James apologizes for not being outdoors: “Wow, my day ruined, I only watch for the adventurous backgrounds. Nothing to do with the charming, beardy man in front of the camera giving me good advice on photography. I can’t believe he would do this again.”
🤣
A rational and reasoned comparison on full frame vs crop sensor cameras on RUclips.. there is hope for this world after all!!
everyone knows full frame is better than cropped
Being 60 years old, the weight matters a lot. Being that the MFT system costs half as much as the FF system, my bank account matters a LOT.
Being that, neither you nor I (at 64), think we have a chance at a Nat Geo spread yet we can still wow most with our MFT pics, the weight of the tools we use and, my bank account, are what matter most! Good call sir :-)
As a 62 year old amateur photographer with a bad rotator cuff I love the less weight advantage of my G9. Hardly ever use a tripod. I do miss the low light advantage of a full frame since I do some sports photography at night but with this hobby I'm very happy with my G9.
I have a bad shoulder as well, I just got a z50 with the 16-55 and the 50-250. The camera and two lenses weigh less than my 70-200 f2.8. Camera and lens quality have come so far that I am not wanting in anyway with this little guy!
Size Matters
but more important
weight matters too
I agree but one thing I appreciate with m4/3 is that in a small shoulder bag I can carry 7 lens and a couple of camera bodys. My old canon rebel wouldn't even enter with just one lens, and the weight is reasonable.
And focal distance / viewing angle matters.
i love how 4/3 photograph try to convince themselves lol... i had a G9 now i'm on a R5 its day and night, its more expensive but panasonic 4/3 is trash PURE TRASH
@@lnz971 Try useing your G9 in a church for instance, flash/tripod,s prohibited. This is where M4/3 is far superior, side by side, you coudn,t get the image, I can, better depth of field, superb IBIS,(worth 4/5 stop,s), think again.
@@steveworthington930 Are you Joking M4/3 in low light situation is far superior??? My R5 have a way better ibis ( r5 and lense are stabilized 8 stop ), Lenses are way sharper and have a better depth of field buddy than 4/3... let's not talk about the worst autofocus system ( panasonic ). You really don't know your subject man
THANK YOU for bringing up the fact that smaller sensors have a depth of field advantage when you want everything in focus. No one ever brings this up and I feel like it’s a HUGE benefit of smaller sensors. In fact most people bring up how full frame cameras have a shallow depth of field as a good thing because that means more bokeh. I certainly am usually trying to get more of the scene in focus, not less, and I think most photographers are the same. Too me, arguing about which sensor size is best is like arguing which focal length is best. 24mm isn’t inherently better than 85mm or vice versa. It entirely depends on what kind of photos you’re trying to take, and like everything in photography it’s a direct trade off between one capability and another. Great video!
It is the same to me. I am not doing landscape but ordinary family pictures. I usually want the whole family in focus not only the left eye of one of the members. Consequently I am used to stop down my MFT a bit.
I would not call this an "advantage", because you can just stop down on a full frame lens. A 25mm MFT lens set to f/1.8 collects the same amount of light and has the same depth of field as a 50mm full frame lens set to f/3.5, simply because the entrance pupil has the same diameter. (25/1.8 = 13.8mm, 50/3.5 = 14.3mm). The advantage of full frame is that you can actually open up that entrance pupil to 27.8mm and collect almost 4 times the amount of light (losing depth of field in the process).
To me the advantage of MFT is not having to carry lenses like the Lumix S Pro 24-70 F/2.8, which checks in a 935g (> 2 lbs). Or the Lumix S Pro 50mm f/1.4 which is even heavier (over double the weight of the Nikon 50mm AF-S f/1.4).
Also, for some types of photography (e.g. travel or documentary photography) it's also an advantage that you don't draw nearly as much attention to yourself with a smaller camera and lens.
@@ge48421 while the two lenses and setting you reference do have the same aperture size and field of view and therefore let through the same amount of light, the MFT sensor needs 1/4 as much light to expose the same image compared to the full frame camera . So while in the example you gave both photos would have the same depth of field (and in one sense would be letting in the same light) the advantage of MFT is then that your shot is at a 4X faster shutter speed (maybe 1/125 instead of 1/30). Of course, a smaller sensors needs less light because it collects less information, so that’s an advantage of a full frame sensor (more info means it can have 4X the megapixel count and look the same, or it could have 4X bigger pixels and therefore more dynamic range/less noise, or do a bit of both). As I said earlier, everything in photography is a direct mathematical trade off. People have preferences on what trade offs are worth it for them, but there’s no one solution that’s definitively best. I like APSC because it’s a happy balance for me, but others will prefer other formats. To each their own!
@@ge48421 Again, if you need bigger depth of field you compensate the noise advantage of FF just because you don't need to step down as much.
In case you need shallower depth of field the FF gives a clear advantage, of course. You only need to pay much more money and carry a lot of more wight.
The same discussion is possible the opposite way round and blame the FF as a small sensor format against the Medium format sensors.
All systems are compromises the question is what you like to give in and what you want to get in exchange.
@@johnsilver9676 I think the op’s point is that he doesn’t want to carry/pay more for things that won’t be used. If the depth of field and noise on a crop sensor is enough for someone then the FF sensor would be a waste. With how good cameras have gotten in the past few years, no half decent photographer should have issues with DOF or low light with practically any system, barring the most extreme use cases.
Most people binge Netflix, but I can’t be the only one who binges James Popsys. Thank you for all the vids, am learning a lot!
No you are not the only person that binges James Popsys, entertaining and informative such fun to watch and wonder what analogy he will use next
I'm not particularly a landscape photographer, but if I do landscapes I practically never do it at night and only rarely at dusk or dawn. I usually do my landscapes at daylight, preferably when there is nice weather. I hate cold and rain. Even if it is cloudy or foggy or even a bit drizzly, I never have the need to go over 400 ISO with my MFT (I use Olympus) at an aperture which allows for deep depth of field (in landscape I usually want that) while maintaining a short enough shutter speed to not blur the picture. In fact, most of my landscapes are shot with base ISO.
I see a use for full frame camera when you are into astro-photography, specializing in low-light photography or in taking pictures of dark objects, or if you tend to crop from your pictures extensively. Since I do nothing of this, a full frame camera wouldn't benefit me.
Sounds like many of us photographers would fit your description of what they do. And if there is a very occasional circumstance where mft has to struggle (very low light etc) then it is up to the photographer to use her/his skills and make the best of it!
Most computer monitors and phones aren't even 4K in 2022. So, since 4K = 8mp, I think any camera with 16 - 20mp or more is enough for 99% of today's applications.
I really wish people would stop living in the myth that a larger sensor always gives you better results, because it doesn't. The main benefits of a larger sensor are lower noise at higher ISO's and more dynamic range. You can of course also get a higher resolution, but that will only be of benefit if you do large prints or if you tend to crop a lot. Aside from these things it's the lens(es) that matter the most for image quality.
I appreciate your comment so much! So many people I come across are full frame fanboys and don't understand that every camera have their own use. That is why I appreciate APSC and MFT, because they are more reasonable price and cheaper lens. Plus the focal length extends, and it is lightweight!
Low light, resolution, dynamic range, bokeh and price for equivalent lenses. Otherwise, no benefit.
This the the most comprehensive explanation of crop factor equivalence I've heard yet. Full frame isn't inherently cleaner, it just has more range. But sacrificing depth of field isn't always the best option, I find that for macro work especially, alot of times mft is better because I can gather the same amount of light, but double the depth of field.
You're not getting as much light though. You're just using more gain to reach the same ISO number. That's why there's more noise. You're amplifying both the signal and the noise but not improving the signal to noise ratio. You could get the same result on full frame by turning the ISO number up and the f-number down.
@@nmcdoug but when shooting macro, you're locked in to certain aperture values. Too open and good luck getting anything more than a sliver in focus. Too narrow and you get diffraction. Mft allows for greater depth of field without diffraction
@@orphanuprising I'm pretty sure if you compare say f11 on MFT with f22 on full frame you should get the same depth of field and diffraction.
@@nmcdoug I mean it depends on the lens, obviously but in my experience, and with my macro lenses, that's not the case. I can shoot f13 on my mft gear with little to no diffraction, and any more than f16 on my ff lens, its very soft.
@@orphanuprising That's strange, I can't think of a reason that would be happening. Are you comparing equivalent focal lengths?
Good points here. I have a pana 43 and sony FF setup myself. I would add one thing: If you mostly shoot jpgs and DON'T edit your photos alot, you'd be fine with MFT. If you shoot raw and edit your files extensively, the need for FF soon rises. In Lightroom I find the FF raw-files can handle so much more "beating" especially on the color side. Changing WB in post for example. Or changing the RGB-channels.
Thanks for the video and cheers.
Thanks for this clear summary, James. I'd like to add that MFT cameras have much better IBIS, allowing for longer handheld images at night. Olympus's Hi-Res mode (maybe Panasonic's as well?) also increases the dynamic range. These partially compensate for MFTs low light ISO weakness, however, not so much when there are moving objects and you don't want a blur effect. For me, the price and size/weight of MFT cameras make them my generally preferred choice, but I could see experimenting with a larger sensor sometime in the future.
It's worth mentioning also at how ridiculously good some anti-noise software is nowadays.
Good point. How much of an issue the camera’s performance is depends on the ease of correction. If you’re going to work it in post anyway, it’s less of a differentiator.
Dx0pureraw (and others) eliminates all noise! for the sake of £100, you are potentially saving thousands by changing system.
You have been perfectly clear, and this is the most sensible comparison between the two sensors I have encountered. It provides a compelling argument for the continued utility of M43 cameras: the lenses. I love my collection of lenses, mostly Panasonic/Leica, for their size/weight and overall optical qualities. I don’t see myself trying to replicate them for a larger sensor camera (even if I had the spare cash).
Interesting video! I prefer the APS-C system because of the 3:2 aspect ratio and the better ISO handling than the MFT. It’s the best middle ground if you don’t need or can’t afford a full frame. Also i can use any EF lens on my canon aps-c.
Yes, you have to pick what suits your taste. I usually crop to at least 4/3 although there are certain photos that suit the wider aspect ratio. More often though I would be cropping away the extra width.
Before I listen to you I’m compelled to say I’ve spent years listening to many landscape photographers especially here on you tube saying the same thing that “gear doesn’t matter and it doesn’t matter what size the sensor is” interestingly, now, many of these same people are now using Fuji gfx or similar with larger sensors! Lol. In reality there are differences, pixel size (and not necessarily total resolution) makes a very big difference especially re noise characteristics, etc, etc.
As indeed James now has
There is then another can of worms opened up when you consider equivalence.
If both lenses are f2.8 lenses then the M4/3s is wide open and lenses usually perform worst at their extremes, whilst the full frame lens has been closed down by 2 stops which will likely produce sharper results.
That then also goes someway to explaining the weight differences, if they had f5.6 zooms for full frame they would be around the same weight as f2.8 zooms for M4/3
Its all a giant headache when you start thinking about it all :D
I don't know about your experiences with M4/3 lenses, but contrary to FF lenses they typically show (almost) their best performance wide open.
I've got the S5 and G9 and a couple of lenses for each. I like both cameras and, as you say here, they serve different purposes at different times, but if I had to pick one it'd still be the G9 despite being older. It's still the best handling digital camera I've ever used.
Amen sir! Im you grab the G9 it is a part of your body. Amazing ergonomics ans features. Ich love my G9 as well ans my S5, too.
DxO Deep PRIME does some amazing things to the noise for µ4/3. It’s slow and ponderous to use, but the results are worth it.
Depends on your pc obviously.. it takes about 10 seconds to kill noise on my laptop. Awesome software.
Thank you Mr. Gerard Butler of photography for a interesting comparison :)
If he drinks whiskey daily and experiences one stroke then he will look like Gerard Butler :)
A world renowned photographer, who will remain nameless, took a family portrait of us 20 some odd years ago with an Olympus 3 megapixel camera. The 11x17 print is grainy, colourful and it’s wonderful. He captured a very funny moment when my 2yr old son tried to bite our older daughter’s arm. A full frame camera would not have improved the picture. Just saying. James is a good photographer.
Appreciate these reviews in a time when sony and canon are pushing to make FF look like a must.. after they both failed with their aps-c lineups; basically they were slapped in the face by fuji and even MFT, so now theyre selling sensors by the squate foot to prove their superiority. People should understand what's real and what is pure marketing.
As a hobbyist I have GX9 but I found your video fascinating. It was very useful and I learned a lot. I love your style and delivery. I’m not keen on tripods either. Thank you James.
I currently shoot with a 1" sensor on the Sony RX10 IV. I'm very pleased with the results. In fact, I've been able to take better pics than even I had with APS-C cameras. I was always nervous about going down to a smaller sensor but found I didn't need to sacrifice quality when shooting with a 1" sensor.
Also software has really narrowed the gap when you can easily get rid of noise or boost resolution.
I use a 1inch sensor TZ100 for multi-day backpacking trips and in good light with lowish contrast it’s as good as my MFT. And HDR and pano mode make up for most of its other problems. But I do miss shallow DoF for closeups and it is much noisier in low light.
Omg, thank you so much for a reasonable and (as far as I can tell) accurate discussion of equivalence! :D
Love watching your stuff, just bought myself a G9 due to getting sick of carrying my FF gear about (weight) but I will be keeping it for low light situations, keep up the good work James
I've shot with Lumix MFT kit alongside full frame and APS-C DSLRs for years, and really there's so little difference in image quality, I've often had images from both systems mixed up in an edit from a shoot, so even I can't tell which is which. Sometimes the Lumix images are sharper, partly down to the depth of field thing going on, but also because the Lumix lenses are newer designs, optimised for a digital sensor, whereas quite a few DSLR lenses are still older optical designs for film resolution. But the biggest plus point of Lumix kit is I can't always be arsed lugging FF DSLR kit around on some days, on some jobs. Big win for MFT!
When i was sailing on a Viking river cruise with my Panasonic GX8, I found that image wise, it lacked nothing image wise because it along with an Olympus 12-100 and the incredible image stabilization, I could photograph in light levels that were impossible for my Nikon equipment. The GX8 has such incredible versatility that is unmatched in full frame. I would have had to carry a tripod for many of my shots for my Nikons. Plus what you see is what you get.
You succeeded! A really clear and easy to understand comparison between the two formats.
Having made the jump to full frame (s5) - this is really interesting to me. Like the technical background - and the practical implications - thanks James 👍
This is exactly why I have stuck with 4/3 and micro4/3 since about 2005.
Granted I bought my first SLR at the age of 15 and money for lenses was tight... but the 4/3 ecosystem complemented my outdoors and hiking lifestyle and that is why I have stayed. The size/weight advantage is worth so much more when you are on a week long hike and the nearest fire road is 25 km away...
Thank you for a balanced comparison. Also, the IBIS on a camera with a smaller sensor tends to perform better and that alone may offset image degradation due to noise, depending on subject and conditions of course.
James, you were very clear and pleasingly concise. You’re a gifted communicator.
Good video! I think something that often gets overlooked by gear nerds (I'll include myself in that category) is that regardless of brand or format, we have dang good gear these days. It's not too long ago that many of us were awed by 6 - 8mp cameras that technically can't compare with current equipment. Yet they produced some beautiful photos. And as an old codger I can recall shooting ASA (in the US ISO was once called ASA) 25, 50, 64 film. 35mm film at ISOs of even 400 could get pretty darn grainy even at relatively small print sizes. And how did anyone ever take a good action sports photo without state of the art AF?
Late reply, but you wrote an interesting comment. Yes, the gear today is excellent, and the choices to be made is endless. I often find the pictures made by the top notch equipment too crisp and clear. In many situations it's preferable, but for some styles of pictures they lack the needed mood. I still love my old 5Dmk2, and it suits me well for my "kind of artistic" way of shooting. It's not great, but good enough. I'm a gear nerd myself, but I don't care about new stuff. Good old manual lenses are my hunting ground. Regarding sport photos with manual lenses, the photographer must predict the path of movement, and pre set everything for the spot where the photos are taken. Then spray and pray. The % of keepers are of course low.
made complete sense to me anyway. Sticking with m4/3 personally, purely because of weight.
I am quite grateful to you for this video. Now, instead of trying to explain the differences between M43 and FF (especially given the current FF mania) to those who inquire (ne challenge) regarding the differences between the formats, I can just refer them to this video. Well done, laddie!
A couple Lumix embassadors I sometimes watch on RUclips always say that the low light performance on paper might be worse, but the smaller Micro Four Thirds sensors often have such amazing stabilization that they can get sharp handheld shots at a quarter of a second so it doens't matter much. Personally I use APSC and I don't mind Noise one bit, I almost exclusively shoot in Black and White and noise adds character if you ask me.
That's my experience, I always end up using my M4/3 over my full frame Sony A7c, which I do enjoy, but only for photos.
As a sports photographer, I'll take a good 300mm lens on an APS-C body over a 400mm lens on on a full frame body any day of the week. The savings in weight and money is astounding. Couple that 300mm lens on an APS-C body with a 70-200 on a full frame body, and I get a hugely flexible kit without breaking the bank, or my back.
Cameras are just tools. Use the one(s) that best fits your job(s).
Excellent video as always. Hope the lawnmower works out.
I've personally found that FT just owns everything else for daytime telephoto work, especially Olympus lenses, for size (small!), sharpness, and focus speed, especially in event shooting outdoors.
I don't know why Panasonic hasn't sponsored you. You make the most professional videos covering m43 and lumix cameras.
you forgot to mention one very simple solution for the "landscape-situation" in dim light ---- a tripod !!!
With this item the FF camera can be used with quite low ISO numbers and also open aperture and will be superior to the m4/3 system!
Fantastic thing to carry
This is honestly the best comparison between the two systems. So often folks ignore the weight difference and only concentrate on noise. I own both FF and m4/3 and for 95% of shooting I do m4/3 for me personally offers a better balance.
One of the best explanations I've seen on this topic. 👍👍
Fabulous video! Very clear, informative and helpful. This has helped me a lot as I contemplate full frame. For now, I’ll stay with micro 4/3 because of the weight advantage and my use case (environmental portraiture). And I’m pretty happy with the shallow depth of field with the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and Panasonic-Leica 15mm f1.7. By the way, I love your channel, it’s one of my very favourites!
I liked this video a lot. Most people do not understand this M43 - full frame ‘game’ correctly. It is all true what you said. One way to overcome the costs of the extra full frame camera, is to buy faster lenses. The challenge though is that they may not be available. Some camera brands go this direction: e.g Fujifilm offer the 50 mm f1.0. What I am sometimes asking myself is, if the autofocus capabilities are connected to the sensor size. The cameras with the best capabilities in this area are Sony and Canon for with their full frame cameras.
James: Somehow this popped up front page and I enjoyed your information immensely. I'm a. big G9 user and now I know why I like it so much in comparison to the big boys. Thanks for this one video especially. A loyal subscriber, Jim
I've waited for this video. I use the G9. Went to Uganda with only 3 lenses and of course, had to carry everything on my back. After 10 days, every little bit in weight reduction is a blessing. But also the video capabilities of the camera are stellar.
I don't do a lot of low light shooting, do bike ride a lot, and we travel. I've thought, if the G9 dies, what would I replace it with. The S5 likely, but still, the cost of getting a G9 would be less and since I have lenses for it, well...
Thanks for an honest review.
This is the first time I’ve heard an explanation of equivalence not being used to argue that small sensors are bad. Everybody else seems to assume that less depth of field is always a good thing, when clearly it is not for some types of photography. Having said that, I am loving the extra dynamic range, and latitude to lift shadows in raw files from my S5 vs. my G9.
Yes, where I found more DoF being a life saver is when I do macro photography. Doing macro with my m4/3 camera is so much more pleasant than doing it with my FF system.
TLDR: 2 years from now "I GOT THE FUJI GFX100!
Great video, i actually made the switch over to Full Frame from Fuji, because of capturing action in low light, but damn the lenses....
Some great points here James, especially regarding Equivalence. The other good point well made was with regards to lens size/weight. That's where the differences really become obvious in most cases.
What you forgot to mention is that a lot of MFT cameras have amazing image stabilization, meaning you can hand hold at much slower shutter speeds and still get clear photos. You can go down to 1 second or more on a lot of Olympus 4/3.
Also you don't need to stop down. If you have to shoot a landscape at F5.6 with m43 you will need to be at F11 full frame.
Well done you've hit the 'equivalency' nail on the head. There are so many photographic "experts" out there who just don't get it. My view is the issue comes from the incorrect and confusing terms "Full frame" and "Crop frame". APSC, 35mm, Medium format, are much more accurate thanks.
Great video, very helpful. I own the G9 which is a fantastic camera. Wish I had one of the Lumix full frame versions though, like you. One thing I have found though is something like Topaz DeNoise (and many other similar apps) can really dial down the low light noise from my G9. Yes, it might be a pain to have to do that but batch processing is available and it really works well. Pros are likely to have a FF camera in their arsenal but those of us who can’t afford it or don’t have stronger bodies to carry them around do have other alternatives.
That lawn mower looks ace 🤘🏻
It's a thing of beauty! Well worth a day at home ;)
I appreciate your nuanced approach to a topic that many m43 shooters aren’t able to address without trying to spin the facts a little. That said, your 70-200 F4 needs to go on a diet. The Canon RF 70-200 F4 is 695g, almost half the weight of your 70-200 F4 monster and therefore much closer in weight to your F5.6 equivalent m43 zoom.
I'm still happy with my mFT gear. Don't need any Full Frame stuff.
This comparison was spot on, showing what really matters, not that much of pixel peeping for 10 perfect of people
Excellent video, but the equivalences on depth of field and aperture between ff and micro4/3 are due to field of view, not the aperture itself. For example, say that you're shooting a 50mm lens on both cameras. On the micro43 one because of the sensor size, you'd have an equivalent of a 100mm lens attached to it. If you shoot both at say f2 from the same distance, you'd obtain the exact same depth of field, but the field of view on the micro43 would be much tighter. So, if you wanted the same field of view, you'd have to double the distance with your subject with the micro43 camera. This is, in practise what causes the difference in the depth of field, the fact that you're always at double the distance from your subject when comparing to a ff sensor.
All well said. I knew all this before I "upgraded" to full frame - especially the fact that you only get better noise levels when you are working at the limit and you can't open the aperture any further. I still did upgrade and in many scenarios it does not chnage a thing regarding the output. But when you need it it's great. Also I just like working with the same "specs" as in the old 35mm film days.
p.s.
1.3kg for a 70 - 200 F4??? The Canon RF version comes in at half the weight and quality wise it's perfect.
Solid video but for those of you who are singing praises to crop sensor cameras...I’ve never been happier switching to full frame. Image quality, dynamic range, and with IBIS(thank you mirrorless) I can shoot hand held at base ISO with outstanding results. I think the argument holds up if your comparing crop sensor bodies to full frame DSLR’s.
I often encounters full frame photographers around me who never even considered a 70-200mm lens, either the f4 or f2.8, due to them not seeing themselves lugging the behemoth around. A Lumix G9 II with a 35-100mm f/2.8 (70-200mm f/5.6 FFEQ) is bang on 1kg (less if you chose the OM-1). Although a mere 400g less than an A7 IV + 70-200mm f/4 combo, but if you carry other lenses in your bag, the differences add up quick.
Thanks for the comparison! I find the added 2kg for a fullframe kit and the more bulky packing size a big hassle when motorcycling. Having the same lenses for my GH5 it's about a 2.4kg haul but packs away quite nicely even in a tank bag. So, with that in mind, I'll not soon go over to FF. I do however miss the low light capabilities but as said earlier the tradeoff is too big. Thanks James!
Brilliant! Every person who asks what camera should I get should see this video
It's nice to see the ambivalence over dof equivalence being mentioned. Not everybody wants it shallow, as is often repeated over and over.
I'm just an ordinary consumer and I like to be able to see the contents of my images, that's why I'm taking them ;) I settled for apsc as a good middle ground.
Thx for your thoughts James!
Very helpful, thank you. I'm considering switching from full frame to micro four thirds because I'm missing shots by not carrying the very heavy long zoom. This has helped me think about key aspects of the decision.
Switch! Because now with DxO and other the m43 system reduced the distance between the photographic results. You can shoot with 6400-12800 ISO and use noise reduction.
This was immensely helpful to me. I've been wondering about the difference for years watching you now and just never looked into it in detail. Thanks for putting so much detail into this.
Awesome video James, really appreciate the knowledge shared there. Have a great weekend 😁
This is why I like APS-C sensors and always recommend it for people looking to get into photography. Starting on neither extreme while you learn is a big help as you figure out what you like to photograph and your style of photography. Keep note of the limitations that you frequently encounter. Do you find you need more dynamic range or your low-light photos are too noisy? Move to full frame. Find that you keep leaving your camera at home because it's a hassle to lug on hikes? Move into Micro 4:3 and cut weight. Or you may find that APS-C is just right and you get some the image quality benefits of a larger sensor with the some weight (and cost) savings of a smaller sensor.
I've used Lumix cameras for the past 10 years and still have the G7. I recently bought a Sony full frame for night landscape photography and I'm very happy with it, but I've found I've gone back to the G7 more and more when out walking due to weight. Unfortunately I sold the best of my Panasonic lenses. I really appreciate this video James and it's explained a lot about the sensor differences. Thank you.
I find that I end up adding some noise to my Lumix files when I shoot creative portraits. The G9 sensor is so good at high ISO. Great video!
I just love you videos, James. They are quirky, funny BUT full of information. I ahve to assume that it is the You Tube experience that removes any possibility of the average moretal being able to see the differiences that you highlight. Maybe, we are supposed to pause your video and scritinize the picture. If so please tell us, I love your dialogue so just continue to listen to what you say. Also, if you were to highlight the areas that show the terrible noise, for example, that you were referring to, it would be fabulously beneficial as a learning tool.
Slight physics of optics thing - the f-number is the aperture and is defined as focal length divided by iris diameter, hence the f-slash designator. And it doesn't care what size the image is (the sensor size). If it is f/4 on a 20mm lens, that lets the same amount of light through as on a 200mm lens. If you were to take a full frame 50mm lens and a MFT 50mm lens, both set to f/4, the amount of light would be the same, identical but the iris diameters would not be.
When we go equivalence, the MFT 25mm lens vs the 50mm full frame lens, then f/4 becomes 25/4 = 6.25mm diameter iris and 50/4 = 12.5mm diameter. So whilst the aperture number is a direct measure of the amount of light (for the exposure solution) it does affect the hyperfocal distance and hence the depth of field - because we are using lenses of different focal length (it's not just the aperture).
I shot with a Pentax 67 for years, so now, all of these cameras seem small. All the digital tech available now is amazing.
Wonderful video with a very reasonable explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of sensor sizes. I have a fairly different use case, but as a street photographer camera size and a light pack are still very important. The depth of field advantage of a m4/3 or smaller sensor is also a very big advantage for something like street photography. Great work.
Great review James and Spot on. Last year before the dreaded lurgy hit us, i ran an A7R3 with all the GM glass, and yes it was nice to have and yes i could crop in massively when shooting sports etc, however weight was the issue, i started to not take it out with me, which is no use to anybody, i always reached for my G9 or OM10 mk3 as the results were as good or close as i wanted. I sold it all kept the M4/3 and everythings cool. Will i buy a FF again, maybe but unless i want to take pictures of my feet in the bedroom i wont make this decision till lockdowns fully off. My honest view of FF and the main bugbear with Mirrorless full frames is the sensors are like Dysons vacs, every time i went out i had to check it and do the customary Visible dust swab, something ive yet to do with my M4/3. Keep up the good work, and keep ya eyes out for the dreaded dust gremlins :). I dare to think what MF would be like ughhhhh
Really interesting, thank you for this. Even if I do not fully understand every technical detail, your explanations are more than clear enough so I get the gist and it is helpful stuff.
The resolution benefit of larger sensors is starting to crumble with things like super resolution AI algorithms that upscale images to much higher resolutions for printing without obvious artifacts or loss in detail.
The AI's algorithms can only help with larger prints to maintain details , but can not create more data.
Great comparison. Sensor size is important but each system does have its strengths and weaknesses. Understanding those will help you make an intelligent choice for your situation.
Hello. I also use both systems (Oly and Sony) and I like them both. Both has advantages and disadvantages. There is never mentioned dynamic range difference.
And in most cases IBES, high res. results and read out speed is on MFT side.
Great comparison. Such noise at ISO1600 with "latest" M43 sensor. Might be still OK for very low ISO, but it is hardly any practical in more than just an landscapes use.
This is the first time I've seen an apples vs apples comparison between sensor sizes. Thank you.
I also have a S5 and G9 and also use my S5 more for low light. The G9 is perfect in good light. I love owning both.
in that DoF equation, one key part left out is the fact of distance-to-subject to "equally" fill the frame which results in larger DoF on smaller sensors... something many forget about when discussing this subject and the REAL reason of DoF effect.
Fantastic and accurate comparison. So many people miss the photographic equivalent comparison. As for weight, Sony E mount with the fantastic Tamron lenses can get you close in weight to a 4/3 system on FF. Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 paired with the 28-200 f/2.8-5.6 is just around a KG total for both lenses. They have done an amazing job with their latest e mount lenses and hopefully they release them for other mirrorless mounts.
Didn't see much difference between my Canon aps-c DSLR and a full frame one (also Canon) without going into too much of a deep pixel-peep-mode. In general: in 'normal' circumstances, and besides depth-of-field, there isn't much difference.
Full frame or medium format all day long. Some of us need the resolution for our clients. We got no time to toy around with crop sensors or micro 4/3
Hey James, here is me sitting with my newly bought Canon EOS R6... 20mp :D I was thinking a lot about getting the R5 but then decided to save the 2800$ and buy one or two of the new RF mount lenses with that money instead.
My reasoning was (after a loooong thought about it)
Is 45mp better than 20mp? YES!, is 20mp really low for a high end Mirrorless Camera? YES , Will 45mp make my pictures 2.25 times better (or less shit) ? i dont think so. Will the 2800$ make my pictures twice as good? I dont think so either.
Technically i could have afforded the R5, but... - im not a professional working photographer like you are. :-)
If you read this far - THANKS for the very inpirational videos you create, i felt for a long time "im doing it wrong" by prefering to walk somewhere and take pictures along the way instead of going on location for 8h for "the perfect shot"... yet i always feel i could use some practice to train my eye to see "things" - and your style defeinitely helps me in spotting interesting landscape's. Plus your humor is always great ;-)
So thank you anyway - your work is greately apprechiated! (i hope you dont mind my bad grammar, im not a native english speaker)
Actually, if I would buy a full frame camera, I would buy a Sony 7S camera with the 12 MP sensor. That would give the maximum of theoretical advantage of full frame in low light situations. For everything else, I'm very content with my Olympus.
1) Congrats on the new mower! 2) Nice information! Something for the pixel badgers to digest!
Thanks James for a very clear explanation of the two sensors camera systems and comparison.
Congratulations on the new Lawnmover :-) ... happy Lawning days ahead!
Grateful to hear from personal experience rather than a person reciting the specification comparison chart.
Funny thing James, video/photography gear and lawn mowers is my favorite combination and made me start my own channel. 😅 Love your videos. Thank you!
I think I got it: you halve the focus, square the ISO, make it shudder quickly, sacrifice a field of fish and chips and loose half the weight.
I know now, I should have gone with Micro 4/3, but at the time I decided on a camera, I did not understand the conversions between the systems. This is really useful information in a nutshell.
No need to excuse for being indoors: we had snow, rain and blistering sunshine here in the last few days. More like portrait or product photography weather. Or macro photography of the various insects which froze in the cellar over the winter :)
Great video as usual. You should also do a review on that lawn mower, I'm thinking of switching from Full size petrol to micro two batteries.
Thank you for the video.
I'm done with APS-C bodies already, let alone MFTs. Now shooting with FF and APS-H.
As usual, thanks for posting. One thing to get out of the way--why don't we quit using the misleading term "full frame" as that refers to 135 format which was considered to be "small" format back in the film days. How about we just call it 135 format? Regarding high-ISO noise, as you point out, it doesn't really matter that much. "Real" (as opposed to "technical") IQ is primarily a function of composition/focus/exposure, and noise generally presents as "grain," which can actually enhance the look of the image (I very often apply film looks in post as it can make the image appear more "natural" and compelling). Also, with DxO's DeepPRIME noise reduction, I can more than compensate for my G9's couple of stops higher ISO noise should I choose to do so. Regarding DoF, it's far more common (at least in my experience) to want more DoF, not less, so advantage MFT there (plus I can easily get as shallow as I want, especially with my f/0.95). Modern lenses (high-end and even entry-level) render so ridiculously well that images can be too sharp. 4K TVs can almost be painful to watch sometimes (although I do use a 4K monitor to edit). I'm not saying we should return to pictorialism, but current tech allows us to produce image "quality" well beyond the limits of human visual acuity to discern and when you find yourself doing ridiculous things like pixel peeping, you end up being one of those people who don't listen to music, they listen to how well they think their system is reproducing the music. Not seeing the forest for the trees... It would be interesting to print the same images from the G9 and S5 (or borrow an S1R the throw more MPs into the fray) and see if one is "better" than the other (or you can can tell the difference). You size/weight comparison is also the reason I chose the G9 over a larger-sensor rig (and after decades of 35mm SLR film experience, I also now prefer 4/3 to 3/2 most of the time). In my case, it's even more critical, as I use my Leica 100-400 a lot, and if an "equivalent" 200-800 even existed for 135, it would be huge and cost more than a car (and weigh nearly as much)! It doesn't do any good to have lenses that are too big for travel... The bottom line is that different systems are more suitable for different situations--neither of these formats is better than the other and they both can produce amazing images in the right hands.
Hello ddsdss. Excellent comments. While I "only" own mft cameras so have no personal experience with other systems..(and so-called full frame can be thought of as a cropped sensor from say a large or medium format...ouch that must hurt to hear of you are a full framer) I recall a number of Lumix ambassadors saying prior to Panasonic adding the larger "unnamed" format with it's S series that if you have lens X with f1.7 then it really isn't worth getting a lens with the same focal distance that has f1.4...the difference in IQ is not enough to justify the purchase.
Fast forward to 2020 and these same Lumix Ambassadors have bought an S1 or S5 for, at times, a marginal difference...also given post processing options. Something strange going on.
IMHO I wonder if the same thing is going on in videography. Most content is being watched on screens, often with a max 1080p!, that are no bigger than 13inches. Yet videographers "must have 8k with a gazillion frames per second"... I wonder if there is an echo chamber there among videographers who have fallen for some camera manufacturers ruse of that you must have 8k....
Lets also not forget the evolution in post-processing technology to counter the noise performance differences of the cameras. This really helps for the micro 4/3rds cameras when needing to use higher ISO - take the Topaz products and DxO products, which are supreme. You couple that with techniques like expose-to-the-right (obviously not available in every situation, but many) and you have a recipe for super clean and detailed images no matter what sensor size you use.
Thanks for this James. I’m fairly new to your channel, been watching loads of your videos. I went from an APS-C sensor to a 1” sensor bridge camera a while back (for financial reasons), and this has stopped me going down the “if I get this it will make my shots better” rabbit hole… for now, anyway!
What a great explanation! So many people STILL don't understand equivilance.