Great video, as usual...Just a small addition: being a macro-photographer I really appreciate the higher magnification factor and increased DoF of M4/3. In this field some of the much advertised Full Fram advantages turn out to be disadvantages instead. Something you really should consider if you plan to do some types of photography.
Just the terminology full frame relating to 35mm makes me laugh, what numpty came up with that? so is medium format fuller frame? it makes no sense, and where do the old half plate cameras fit into this size formatting? a marketing ploy definitely at least to some degree. My 35mm equivalent DSLR's spend most of the time sitting in the bag at home I'll stick with M43.
Half frame film cameras are with us since late 50s at least so "full frame" has to be at least that old in order for "half frame" to work as a term. Medium format is medium format, just like 35mm is small format and things bigger than medium are large format, it seems like it's a different level of categorising film/sensor sizes.
"Full Frame" was the unspoken default in the film days, using the standard 24x36mm image area. "Half Frame" distinguished those few cameras that took the same film but produced the smaller images. One must properly label their products, but nobody called a regular 35mm camera a "Full Frame" because they all were. So when digital cameras used the cheaper sensors of the APS size, that is what they were called. Consequently, you had to call the larger sensor *SOMETHING* and since it was the full image area we were used to from film, they simply called it "Full Frame" thereby indicating focal length equivalency. Some folks are pushing to refer to it as 35mm precisely because of the "what is full" argument, but I manage a bit of heartburn over that. After all, the larger image is 24x36, not 35. The 35 refers to the full width of the film, including sprocket holes. You don't have sprocket holes in your sensor, and to folks who did not grow up with film this would be meaningless. Sure, you can call Medium Format "Fuller Format", then watch a 6x4.5 shooter argue image area merits with a 6x9 shooter.
I have been using Micro Four Thirds for a few years now and never felt I needed to upgrade to full-frame. I love the fact that I have less weight in my bag and never needed to print anything bigger than A3. M4/3 has me think more about my images.
Good to hear some common sense. Will stick with my d7500 crop sensor. Too.many mirrorless cameras and so few lenses I consider I would have to spend around 6 thousand pounds to upgrade and without any guarantee of getting better pictures. Not for me at this stage. I must admit that nikon marketing is good but it's all to get you to spend loads of hard earned cash. Just my opinion
I always tought Mft was not good enough because all the big you tubers said so...but i bought one myself and i am more than happy with the results i get out of it.Also the quality of the olympus pro lenses is really unbeatable in my opinion.
Yes, Olympus makes great lenses' am hesitant to sell my first 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 zoom lens. When Olympus switched to the Micro system I was upset since I cannot use this lens.
I have a Nikon D7100 (an APS-C camera for those not familiar). There is an awful lot of pressure, from many sources, to upgrade to a full frame mirrorless and I have been tempted. However, following quite a few sleepless nights kept awake thinking about what I should do I have decided to stick with what I have and keep practising with it. At the end of the day I am not a professional photographer and my camera suits my needs and requirements so what would be the point? Videos like this are really very helpful so thank you very much indeed.
Though I don't shoot Nikon I actually support you in sticking to your D7100 as it is a camera with very good picture quality! And I always respect people who say their "not the latest and greatest" camera is good enough for them, these guy more often than not understand a thing or two in photography!
I have both FF and APSC, for different reasons. The FF old 6D is for low light (blue hour, indoor event etc) dof in portraits, and prints. My APSC Canon sl2 with pancake lens is for my street/travel/Instagram moments. It largely depends on my goals and or circumstances. Note my FF is "old" why? Because for my style of shooting I see no need for the advantages of mirrorless. I take pictures of mostly subjects with no eyes like flowers and trees ( no need for eye auto detect). Oh and portraits I do take? Well they are often in a laid back relax setting were I control the pace, and can take my time on focusing (engagement, senior, branding). The key is knowing who you are as a photographer and what tool is right for you.
Excellent video, I agree that FF is mostly unnecessary for the average hobbyist photographer. If you collect and shoot with MF vintage lenses with adapters like I do, a FF camera body has the advantage that the old lenses function as they were intended with correct aperture and focal length. I bought an a7II mostly for my old film lenses, but I agree with you. My results are really no better than my a6000 with APS-C lenses.
I guess I'm a hybrid since I have both MFT and FF (mirrorless). I grab my MFT about 75% of the time for landscape hiking, wildlife and a bit of street photography. I just recently purchased the Panny/Leica 100-400 for birding, which is wonderful considering the colossal FF equivalent. I tend to use FF for particular landscapes and/or when I know I'll be printing something very large which is only 20-25% of the time. I enjoy both systems very much.
I switched to full frame for two main reasons: 1) I deal with quite a bit of low light no flash allowed event photography that demands at least 1/160 second; and 2) I was lugging around two APSC cameras each with heavy constant f2.8 zooms to be able to cover the range I have noticed I covered the most during these events - 11-23. There is no APSC zoom in any APSC line that covers this requirement (at least back in January 2020 when I made the decision to switch). So now I have the pleasure of a very high ISO capable camera and only have to carry a single 16-35 zoom with dimensions and weight similar to one of the two APSC lenses I was carrying about.
I agree that you should not get a FF just because, just as you should not get mFT just because. Similarly some could argue that you don't need mFT either because you can use your mobile etc...(I don't agree with that) File sizes are not larger on a 24Mpx FF than on a 24Mpx mFT. My Sigma fp is smaller than a Olympus E-M1 and PEN F, a Sony A7III are roughly the size of E-M1. I got FF because that was what I wanted now after a decade with APS-C and I had the lenses to use (also using Sigma APS-C/APS-H cameras). Prices are not that different either for body or lenses (not talking flagship cameras). So it comes down to what you want, for landscape you don't need shallow DOF, but in other situations you do. But don't "upgrade" or "downgrade" gear just to relieve ones GAS. Better to upgrade oneself as a photographer. Watching e6 Vlogs is one thing to do :-)
Great video, I came down from Full Frame to Olympus OMD Micro 4/3rds and I defy anybody after showing them an Image to tell me what format it was taken on, the two issues you highlighted in the differences were correct, i e depth of field, size of finished printed photograph and cropping, I can print A3+ with edge to edge sharpness which are superb in detail and quality that I have not seen bettered, so you are spot on with your analysis, regards.
You are capable of taking truly wonderful pictures with the gear you use. Most photographers (if not almost all) look very pale with their intermediate pictures taken on any systems near you with your little MFT camera. Go on doing amazing stuff Craig!
I use both SONY A7III FF and Olympus EM1-III. For most of the stuff I enjoy 10times more the Olympus who offer much more on site creativity and ability to carry more lenses with lower weight. Having said that, I use the SONY A7III for "commando" shoots. By commando I refer for spots that I know I would like to have shallow depth of field as in most portraits shoots (outdoor) or for high speed shoots as socker at night with arteficial light going to ISO of 5000-8000 even with 70-200 F2.8 lens when shooting at speeds of 1/640 (would love faster however ISO is so high that 1/640 is a compromise). One major disadvantage of Olympus cameras not related to sensor size is their relative poor ability to perform at continuous focus when human are invalved. Compared to Sony A7III not to mention the newer one A7III is almost 3 years old). Another disadvantage (technology - not sure related to sensor size) is the lower ability to recover shadows in Olympus RAW VS Olympus relatively very old 20MP sensor that must be updated to more advanced technology. So there is no weight and wrong. For landscape M43 is usually great. I enjoy shooting M43 much more, and use M43 or FF based on my needs
I think the same. everything is based on your needs. I also have the Olympus em1-3 and several “black leg” lenses. I know its pros and cons. so i will buy a sony a7III (or iv when it comes out). to use with family and dogs. the af and the af to the eye is sublime. Olympus needs to improve that. I'd buy a 55 1.8 and little else. for everything else, I use Olympus (macro, landscape and tele).
I dove head first into Olympus gear a year ago and couldn't be happier. Because, as you so rightly point out, it's not about the gear, it's about the photographer. Honestly your earlier videos are a major factor in what convinced me, because you always get such amazing results. Form, shape, story...that's really what it's about. The only thing I was missing for a while was being able to explore shallow DoF, but now that I've picked up a "nifty-25" 1.2, I get as much DoF range as I'd ever want.
My full frame Sony A7r3 requires two lenses to cover the 24mm to 200mm range. Most of the time I can get similar quality with my Em1mk3 and the 12-100 lens. With the Sony's inferior stabilisation I need f2.8 lenses for shooting in lowlight. They are not lightweight at 886gms and 1500 gms respectively for the 24-70 and 70-200. The Olympus 12-100 f4 weighs 561gms, but the stabilisation is so good, when combined with the EM1mk3 IBIS, that I can shoot handheld at up to one second. The best camera is the one you have with you. Unless I need shallow DOF or the greater dynamic range of the Sony, which is not often, I take my Olympus.
On the issue of cost. As a wildlife photographer we often hear M43 is the way to go. more "reach" lightweight and lower cost. Well let's look at this. Olympus EM1X best in class new price vs a Sony A9 2017 camera that offer still the best focus system on the market for ML. The Olympus 150-500 lens vs the Sony 200-600, yes it has a smaller f stop but the better ISO performance plus FF DOF bring the two on par as far as this is concerned. Same size, weight but the FF give better low light performance often required with wildlife and sport. No I am not against M43, I own an Olympus EM 1mii for travelling. My point is this, Not one system is perfect, and in photography or for that matter any art, is it about need only? The fact that people say they need to think more about their images when the use M43 or is it a matter of how do I work around limitations of the smaller sensor? any photographer using any gear have to "think" about their images. FF does not do anything automatic. So my view, using M43 and APS-C and FF, this debate is old and tired and each system and brand have a following and produce desired results. Some people shoot for clients that might have a specific need, but for the rest of us, we shoot for ourselves and we buy the equipment we want or can afford within respective budgets.
The cost of full frame is prohibitive. It seems to me the main reason to own full frame is to produce very large prints, but how many amateur photographers actually print their photos now anyway?
Tools are for using; ; pick the right tool for the job. Sometimes that's a smartphone, or an 8x10 film camera, or a MFT digital camera, or a 'medium format' digital camera. Or something else; everything has a trade-off. What do YOU need? I guarantee you don't need marketing hype.
I use vintage lenses- almost but not quite exclusively- and my brain still thinks in full frame terms, despite currently shooting APS-C. So I want FF because it's how I understand the focal length and I want mirrorless because I can use a lot more of those vintage lenses such as rangefinders due to flange distance. Otherwise, I would stick with APS-C. Is full frame best? No, but it is what I want.
Hi Craig, I switched back to full frame (Sony) after shooting MFT (OMD EM1 MkII) for a couple years. I originally got into MFT because I was traveling the world extensively for both business and vacations, and I wanted a more compact system with me. I have to say you make a compelling argument for MFT with landscape images. Some of my best images were shot with my 20MP EM1 MkII, and most people would never be able to tell them apart from my 61MP A7RM4. That being said, my chosen genre and personal style requires me to push and pull (including cropping) my images hard in post processing, and I find that full frame images can hold up to editing abuse better than MFT images. Plus I recently retired and travel less, so having a compact system is no longer a priority for me. By the way, I started watching your channel when I switched to MFT, and I still do today. What you have to share goes beyond the MFT community. Keep up the great work Craig.
Having shot 4/3 and then micro 4/3 for over a decade along with full frame and crop I am pleasantly surprised on how much DR is in the new OMD-EM1 mark iii. It's so good that I have started using my newer Olympus for professional high end architecture jobs and so far can't see much difference in working with the files. My kit is now in a small bag and weighs very little compared to my full frame backpack that is very heavy.
What an excellent analysis of the current camera market. I have to say that there is a “Use Case” for just about every camera/sensor format, pixel count and lens option. That said, in my case I am sticking with M43, as it is the best trade off in terms of quality, size/weight, cost and features. I had a loan of the new Panasonic full frame and was able to spend 2 weeks comparing to my trusty Olympus omd em1 and the GH9. I honestly couldn’t see an appreciable betterment in picture quality nor justify the upgrade? Not only to myself but to my financial controller. I’m not a professional photographer, so it’s not mission critical to have the hip gear to impress a client........in a world that is turning to imperfect lenses for a different / retro look. The only person I need to please is myself.
I switched from nikon fullframe to fuji APSC few months ago. Very happy about reduced weight and easier handling, IQ difference is negligible (fuji might be even better because their in-camera jpeg is better than what I can get from nikon raws). I don't think I'll ever think about returning to FF or upgrading to medium format. You're totally right that FF is an obsession, it certainly was for me.
I went with a 4/3 system when I switched from film back in 2005 and then gradually shifted to m4/3 after 2012. Two reasons I have stayed with m4/3; lens quality (Olympus) and ergonomics. I never gave sensor size a second thought because I trust the equipment, hardware and software, to give me the results I want. I actually went with Olympus digital because my first Olympus 4/3 system reminded me of the ergonomics of my old Nikon FE. I've never been a Canon fan because of the ergonomics and I didn't like the direction Nikon went in digital for the same reason. Frankly, I don't believe the human eye can tell the difference, without extremely close examination, between a 4/3 sensor and a 35mm (arbitrary size which has no connection to 35mm film in spite of what marketing would have us believe) sensor and no one has been able to convince me otherwise.
Love my FF for the woodland detail. I would invest in MFT if I climbed mountains, shot vistas or did long hikes where MFT makes sense for weight saving. If I did street or tourism than would also use MFT. The purpose of your photography should determine what you invest in, plus your budget.
Yes you’ve saved me a lot of cash Craig as I was thinking of “upgrading “ to full frame a few months ago but was dissuaded by your sensible arguments. Thank you 😊
I’ve spent six months deciding on my next camera and I went into it “knowing” it had to be full frame. I’ve done a ton of research, thought long and hard, weighing up pros and cons. I have systematically disassembled my argument for full frame to the point where I’m now about to by an X-T3 because I strongly think for my purposes it’s about perfect. Excellent video and thank you.
ive had an X-T3 since its release and i love it. i do landscapes and adapt vintage lenses, created several monochrome film simulations. the user experience surpassed my expectations.
Nice well balanced video. In 2019 I switched from full frame to Fujifilm after a lot of research and trying various cameras. I figured out for 90% of what I shoot crop sensor or full frame made no difference. One of the reasons for choosing Fujifilm was dedicated crop sensor lens unlike some manufacturers who seem to force you to select full frame lens to get the best lens they sell. Another reason was weight. I have kept my eos 6d full frame and one lens for Astro photography and I can’t see my self ever moving away from a full frame for Astro shots.
i went from full frame canon to fuji for a couple of reasons size and weight been the main one, value for money been another. if you have money to burn on full frame go for it but id rather buy a train ticket and go take some photos :)
I totally agree but where people find enjoyment in photography varies. For me, trying to get the best photos I can with the equipment I have (mft) is the goal and there is still a long way to go 😂
I love my small Nikon D3500 crop. It sure does have its shortcomings and I was tempted to switch to FF but this camera makes me learn different post processing techniques and to be creative.
Good arguments, and once spinal doctors join discussion MFT will ultimately beat FF. Save all other arguments, how much pain is caused by FF carrying? I have APS-C and MFT, and when carrying APS-C on all-day walks, I can already sense a lot of difference.
I am a Chinese user of the MFT system. I just started buying and using Olympus cameras last winter. I am a latecomer to the MFT system (even if there is a problem with the Olympus operation). I have always been a full-frame amateur user before, and I own photographic equipment worth more than one million yuan. Later, in the winter of last year, I saw that the Olympus camera department might be closed down. I was worried that I would not be able to buy new Olympus cameras in the future, so I bought 5 EM1Mark3 at a time and matched three Olympus Pro F1.2, 12-100 and Leica 12F1.4 lens (my camera is equipped with a lens). After using an Olympus camera, I feel like I’m so late to meet each other. Because I didn’t know that Olympus cameras work well for many years! Now, my FF camera is idled in the electronic moisture-proof box. In the various lively photography community forums in China, many people are divided into two groups, and everyone is always arguing and contesting the pros and cons of the FF and MFT systems. FF users always attack MFT system users constantly, mocking MFT system users for "bad picture quality", such as high noise, low light environment, low pixel quantity, low color bit rate, etc. (MFT is only 12bit, FF has 14 bit). MFT users laughed at FF users for the clumsy lens! Maybe I belong to an alternative, I also want to buy a few more Olympus fuselages for storage (I am worried that I will not be able to buy them in the future). Now the price of EM1Mark3 in China is between 1200-1300 US dollars, and it will be lower later. China can buy brand new third-party-made batteries at any time, the price is between 4-5 US dollars, I will buy ten spare batteries at a time (buy three batteries to give a travel charger). I like to use Olympus very much, and I left my FF camera idle!
Hi I'm also in China and want to buy a an newer body Olympus camera. I've had my eye on both the em1x and the mark 3 for a while now, and I might be ready to dive into the mark 3. I wanted to ask if you knew what places I am more likely to find Olympus cameras to try or rent? Taobao doesn't have 1 seller who is renting high end Olympus gear, and many on Xianyu dont accept returns. So I'm left with either buying it new to try it out, then reselling in case I dont like it. I'm in the guangdong area in Shenzhen, and even in Hua Qiang Bei I could not find one em1x or em1 mark3. I'm dying to try out these cameras!
@@JoshuaFernandez11 I am in England so can't really help. Your best bet might be to go second hand and maybe go for the E M1 mkii which is a good price second hand.
@@JoshuaFernandez11 Hi, regarding the camera rental business, it is less popular in this type of market in China. Because in the Chinese commodity market nicknamed "World Factory", various commodities are too abundant, and many of its commodities are not expensive for consumers compared to other countries. Therefore, Chinese consumers like to buy new products directly or buy second-hand products. On "Xianyu", another second-hand online shopping platform under Alibaba, a small number of professional second-hand dealers carry out leasing business. I looked up and did not find a dealer operating Olympus camera rental. Maybe Chinese consumers think that Olympus cameras are not too expensive, and most people choose to buy and use them directly, without considering choosing to rent them. This is different from the style and habits of consumers in other countries. My personal opinion of choosing Olympus is: I usually like or need to prefer more sports and animal photography subjects, I can choose Olympus M1X; if there are no other special shooting requirements, I can choose smaller size and more Lightweight 1M3, which can meet most of the daily photography themes. If you choose a second-hand Olympus M1X or 1M3 on the "Xianyu" platform, the price will be much cheaper than the new one! Because Chinese camera users often blindly follow the trend of full-frame fashion, and thus abandon MFT cameras and lenses at very cheap prices. As long as anyone is interested in second-hand Chinese cameras and equipment, they can choose a variety of photographic equipment with lower prices and better quality than anywhere else in the world. Because these goods do not require tax! Including the brand new things I buy online, I don’t need to pay taxes!
@@zarrow50 On the Chinese online shopping platform, the shutter only uses EM1M2 less than 2,000 times, which only costs 400-500 USD, while the brand new one only costs 500-600 USD. The used Pro f1.2 series lens is 99% new and the lens is perfect. As new, only about 600-650USD is needed. The price of 12-100Pro f4 is similarly close. No taxes are required.
FF is the gold of fools! Nothing is more hilarious than seeing beginners walking with GIANT and expensive equipment that they don't even know how to use. These beginners, as well as many professionals were convinced and deceived that EVERYONE needs an FF camera! What is not true.
In older days full frame, as it is now marketed, was called small format! When 24x36mm was released all real photographers were making fun out of it. History repeats itself with m43 and APS-C. Every camera system has his pros and cons. The only important to marketeers is dynamic range and the number of MP's they can squeeze into a sensor. Even m43 cameras have a greater dynamic range as we were used to film and let's not forget the # of MP your EVF has... and finally how bokehlicious your lens is wide open. Nowadays the out of focus areas are more important than what is in focus!
Nice video and thoughts as always. In the film days FF equalled 24x36, APSC equalled half frame (original Olympus Pen). Mft was a size named 110. But that was a long ago, with a different technology. Love my Panasonig GX series. / Ulf
Beside the 35mm film camera of my parents (and some film travel cameras) I used some point-and-shoot digital cameras. And then I came to Olympus. Since then, I stayed with Olympus and I'm happy. Don't need any more. Not more shallow depth of field, not more weight. Nice background blur can also be achieved with my MFT gear. Not so much, but enough for me.
I agree with you on the constant marketing ploy camera company's try with us photographers , you need to up grade all the time !! If I have to pay twice as much for a upgrade I expect the image quality to be twice as good to other wise what's the point ?
I bought a full frame mirrorless camera last year, mainly for night landscape photography and have to say the images are much cleaner. However, I find I've gone back to my Lumix for carrying on walks as the weight is hardly noticed by comparison. Looking back, my first digital camera was an Olympus 5mp in 2004 and this produced some of my best images ever (so long as I don't want to print large). As you say, horses for courses. Very useful video Craig.
Just yesterday at my camera store, while looking at gear, I was helped by someone other than my normal salesperson. It was interesting that the very same "pitch" you began with was the same as the salesperson used - that the new Sony full frame was a much better camera than my 4/3rds. If I was a new person to photography, I would have been inclined to listen and possibly buy a new, expensive Sony full frame along with the bigger and heavier lenses. But I find it rare that I will be blowing any of my shots to 30" X 40", the more or less print size limit for 4/3rds. In fact, I have yet to go larger than 20" X 24". The reason I should take on more size, more weight, and more cost is for what? More pixels I will not need? Less depth of field that I usually don't need or use? More ISO even though I rarely shoot even at 6400? The extra weight so that I can get in shape easier? Maybe I will forego that pressing "need" that the salesperson put on me to buy a full frame camera.
I switched from a FF DSLR to a APSC mirrorless (Nikon Z50) and love it. It’s so light and small I can almost put it in my pocket. Only “lost” about 3mp with switching (24 to 20.9) so not a big deal with that. Hopefully Nikon will add a few more DX lenses, but for now I’m plenty happy with the switch.
I have both full frame and micro 4/3s. The quality from both is excellent but I'm finding when I go out I tend to take the micro 4/3s rather than the full frame, this is partly due to a shoulder injury so weight is important. Craigs photographs prove taking excellent images doesn't necessarily mean you need full frame.
M4/3 (G100) for a lot of work I do and video... full frame Leica for the shooting experience. I’ve used them all and there’s a lot of truth to what you say. Focus on composition, story telling, and overcoming obstacles
Far be it for me to say you're wrong as this is a subjective topic. I switched from M43 a couple of years ago to a full-frame Sony Alpha and the difference in quality was staggering. I wanted a camera that suited working with models in the studio and also for nature and landscapes - a good all-rounder. I've never looked back and am very happy with my decision.
I am using my OMD E-M5 with no interest in an upgrade of any sort. I shoot a considerable amount of low light and the thing that I find makes the biggest impact is the lens that I am using. I purchased an Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens and that has made a huge impact. My wife gave me a Panasonic 25mm f1.4 as a gift and now when the light is really low I use that. The other night I was out taking a shot of an old church in the country with no moon. I used the 1.4 with an exposure of 30 minutes and the results were so clean that I didn't need to use noise reduction in post! The camera is just a tool and learning how to use it is the best thing a person can do to make good images. Thanks for another great video filled with level headed content.
I’m just a hobbyist. I went full frame because I wanted a 24mm (35mm equivalent) for my aps-c Nikon. I noticed that I could buy a D700 for the same price. I already had an old 35mm AI lens. The D700 will meter with old manual lenses. So I just used what I had with a D700.
A 20 mp olympus sensor vs 20mp full frame sensor? the pixel size on a full frame sensor is roughly 3 times bigger allowing it to capture more light, that's why it's better in low light. A 50MM FF LENS HAS THE SAME DEPTH OF FIELD AS AN OLYMPUS 50MM LENS,OLYMPUS USES A 25MM LENSE TO ACHIEVE 50MM FF ACCUIVELANT. A 25 MM OLYMPUS LENS HAS MORE DISTORTION THAN A 50MM FF LENS THIS IS WHY YOU CANT USE OLYMPUS LENSES ON FF BODY.
I went from an APS-C enthusiast camera (Sony A65) to a FF pro body for a list of reasons. Ironically one was value and cost. I was able to purchase a used, 42 mp full frame camera that used several of my existing lenses for less than a new mirror less APS-C plus having to buy all new lenses. Because I didn’t buy a mirror less I was able to purchase several more excellent used lenses to replace any that didn’t make the transition. Each lens was less than $200 each and carefully chosen. In total, all the lenses and the body was only a few hundred more than a new Sony A6600. Here’s my kit list; Sony A99ii (the key was getting this body for a fantastic price) Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 Tamron SP 28-75 f/2.8 Minolta 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 Sony 50mm f/1.4 Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Macro Tamron SP 70-300 f/4-5.6
I have a FF camera. 2 to be honest, a canon 5DmkII which I inherited and a canon RP that I use with vintage lenses I own. I also bought a Fuji X100V which as amazing dynamic range and low light ISO performances, but M43 is what I always bring with me: my pen F and my GX9 are the cameras I enjoy the most because they are small and the primes are tiny. The X100v will soon go on e-bay, with 870 shots in 2 years, because I really don't like a camera without IBIS and I find the dials and knobs, which I love on my old film camera, an inconvenient gimmick that brings no purpose. Both the Pen F and the GX9 are better built then the so vaunted X100V that seems made of tin cans. The RP has good low light performances but bad dynamic range and, unless you pick REALLY expensive lenses the average quality is certainly worse then in the M43 system.
My first camera was the Olympus OM2n with a then growing set of good Olympus OM lenses. The better-than-state-of-the-art technology convinced me to stay with Olympus up to now with their MFT system. Its just fun to use PM2, EP5, PEN F, OM-D M1.. with fine Olympus MFT lenses. Being able to still use my excellent OM portrait, wide angle, and macro lenses without this otherwise welcomed "focal 2 factor" was the only reason why I also bought a SONY A7r. But guess what - the A7r is suffering a dreary lonely drawer live without any hope to be surprised by a new A7xxx buddy.
hi, I'm a happy owner of 2 Panasonic Lumix micro four thirds, the GF1 and the GX8, which are absolutely fine for my photography. I also own a Mamiya 645 S,that due to the great weight and bulk, even of the lenses, I decided to sell to buy later a Sigma DP Merrill, which is able to produce, from what I read in the comments, photographs that have nothing to envy to a medium format. What do you think? Thanks
I think part of the attraction of full frame for many photographers is in the name; “Full Frame”. It implies that it is the ultimate and that everything else is, well, “not full”! Of course, full frame is just another sensor size, as Fujifilm have recognised, by eschewing full frame and going directly from Aps-c to medium format. Mind you, what is “medium format”? Is it “digital medium format”? (Not that much bigger than full frame), or 6 x 4.5”, or 6x7, or 6x9...😂. At the end of the day, the camera and lenses are just tools. You pick the right combination to get the job done. Anyway, hasn’t Adobe’s “Super Resolution” changed the whole debate? You want good dynamic range, high resolution and light weight / portability? Just go for a low megapixel APS-C or M43 system and “super resolutionise” them in Camera Raw. It’s all a digital workflow anyway, until the final print appears on paper, so it doesn’t really matter how much of it happens in-camera and how much on the computer, does it?
I started with Nikon APSC (D100) then the D200 and then I went M4/3 - first Panasonic then Olympus. What I missed with both APSC and M4/3 was a reasonable prices ultrawide lens. So some years ago I went back to Nikon D810 got all the lenses I need for that. Unfortunately I got sick last year and needed something light to carry around and went to Fuji ... which is great by it’s neither Olympus nor Nikon - I got it as everyone was saying that it’s better than the next coming (silly me). I like FF as it does give me some flexibility, I primarily like the colors Nikon produces (just me, I know), and I have it the same way with Olympus M4/3 - unfortunately their very nice zooms cost the same as I have paid for most of my Nikon glas (2nd hand). Today I’d probably get an Olympus setup instead of my Fuji .... It’s not always the tool you use, it’s how you use it. FF / MF does produce some great photos, but if you can’t hit the nail with a hammer then it does not matter how nice a hammer you got.
I sort of went the other way too. I have FF Canon 5D classic and a Leica M Type 262. The Leica simply because I love Leica, have for 25 years. But both are good sized cameras. My most used cameras are the Olympus Pen F and a Sony A6600 APS-C. The Oly Pen goes in a tiny Peak Design 3 liter Everyday Sling bag along with three lenses. Truly a small kit to take along. The Sony A6600 goes when I need long reach, up to the Sony 200-600 G zoom. A fabulous lens. I never feel under equipped with either of the smaller cameras. Thank you for another great video. I like your videos because they most often point us to what's really practical.
Indeed I do not need a full frame. I got an EOS M6 and got some bonus money, and trying to figure out, if I should buy just a better lens than the kit lens, or upgrade to a full frame. Well I have been looking around at reviews all over the place. After all this research (including DPREVIEW comparative tool), I incline more and more for going for Canon RP, with a Canon EF 24-105MM F4L II USM lens. In the end the quality and performance is higher. Not by much. To me it appears, in this domain, no matter what one does, but if one wants to improve quality by an "inch", one has to increase the pay by a "foot"; it feels that way.
Horses for courses. I have a (by modern standards) low megapixel D700 which produces lovely images and cost me £400 for a mint example. Full frame for peanuts. But I use an APS D500 for wildlife to give me the reach without having to remortgage the house to buy a good 500mm lens. I do think the full frame D850 would allow me to track a bird in flight more easily and then crop, retaining the resolution of a D500, but the cost would be double that of the APS body to give me that one benefit (and I’d need the grip the replicate the focus speed and FPS).
I only just found your channel and wanted to say thanks for being a voice of reason in the FF culture wars. I've given up trying to argue with the Canikony sales machine that is hell bent on assimilating us all into the FF universe, so it's nice to see from your video and the comments that I'm not alone. I was a Canon APSC user from my first DSLR but in time, as it became clear that Canon were never going to support their APSC bodies with dedicated pro standard EF-S lenses, I had to decide whether to go FF or change system to Fuji or m43. Long story short - I traded my Canon gear in for an E-M1 mk2 and a couple of Zuiko Pro zooms. They aren't a lot lighter or smaller than my APSC kit was but as a system they give better IQ than I had with my Canon kit. I still have the Panasonic GX-80 two-zoom kit that I bought to dip my toes in the m43 water as a super lightweight & compact backup kit. I realise that m43 won't suit everyone but for a landscaper/generalist on a budget, it's a system with a lot of plus points compared to FF. I've also become aware that I am 3x2 averse - I don't crop to square so much but I do like to crop to 5x4 portrait a lot. On m43 that crop results in a much smaller percentage of pixels lost compared to the same crop on APSC.
I use m43 and fuji x on digital and 4x5 and 5x7 on film. I have sold my full frame cameras (eos5d and 8x10) because i want lighter and still capable tools.
You're absolutely right. What can a full frame give me that I can't get on a micro 4/3? Four months ago, I bought Olympus for only one project - harsh winter shooting in the Arctic Circle. I thought it was just for this. But... now my Nikon z7 is in my bag and I haven't touched it all this time. I like the compact, lightweight and excellent Olympus pro series lenses. Мy choice is a micro 4/3 and a 6x6 film camera .
Hello again! I shoot both an Olympus EM5 Mkii and a Nikon D5500 (APSC). I'm an amateur and shoot primarily landscapes and plants. But I have strayed towards the siren's call of wildlife photography (mainly birds). I blame myself mainly, but I get lots of noise when shooting birds on the Olympus (with 75-300mm long lens) at pre-dawn and post-sunset (direct sunlight = no problem). Therefore the lure of the full-frame becomes stronger when I include astrophotography into the mix. Yet, full-frame long lenses are way beyond my reach and I am convinced that my Olympus shoots far better than I. I'm am determined to get better results from the M43 format and beginner lenses. When I grow up, I'll buy into better lenses and maybe upgrade the camera as well (I better hurry up since retirement is only a few years away). Until then, I'll keep watching your videos since you are such a great teacher. Thank you.
I use Sony A7r4 and PenF actively. Both almost daily. All my serious work is done with the Sony since technically speaking the photograph is always better from Sony and I aspire to create the best possible photograph - sharpness, dynamic range, resolution, high iso performance, lens quality, AF.... The only benefit (aside from being cheaper which actually reflects the product performace) underperform in AF, resolution DR etc...nascent 8K screen resolution will bring requirement for 32Mpx resolution which will put additional stress on the format (have you looked at your 10MPx images from early '00 lately?) as Sony is unwilling to supply current generations of sensors to Pana and Olympus due to their low (and decreasing) production volumes. With so much R&D being put behind FF, m43 will lag behind more and more. It does not make me happy. I would love to see a new PenF for my own personal use but the truth is that it will never come and even today when I compare photographs from the PenF with those from Sony RX1r2 (also several years old camera by now) I am a little bit sad I did not shoot it with the FF RX1. However, if you are enjoying your photography with m43, just keep having fun and don't succumb to the marketing buzz. At the same time, be aware that in terms of performance FF actually delivers on a different level and make peace with a fact that you do not need that. Maybe that is a good thing rather than something to undermine your self value...
I decided to go Mirrorless, As a Canon lover who owned a 7D I opted for the M5, Great camera but for a 6'5" person with big hands it just felt wrong, SO, I now have the much hated EOS R (Not the 5 or 6) and I can honestly say it feels great in the hand but I really can't notice any improvement in image quality over the M5
I've gone back to 35mm film from D4 and D800. The reason? I prefer the format. Its not better just different. For my digital work I use a d7000 ( apsc 16mp) which is more than adequate because I use good glass .
100% My APS-C Fuji XT-3 does everything I need and I am soooo happy to not have to lug around a massive kit. There's a handful of myths rolling around out there about what gear you *need* when you get started in landscape photography: you need FF, you HAVE to shoot on a tripod, You MUST print H U G E! None of these are true.
I made the switch to full frame in 2013 (Nikon D800) and then switched to Fuji in late 2016. In 2013, I just felt that the smaller sensors weren't ready to keep up with full frame, but that changed very quickly. Then when I started having health problems, the full-frame equipment was just too heavy for me to carry around all the time and I decided to go with Fuji. That's still where I am today and I haven't regretted it. For what I shoot (travel, landscape, now and then architecture) the smaller sensor is more than sufficient and the quality of Fuji's cameras and lenses is excellent. I don't think I'll switch back to full frame, although I still have my D800 and think it's a fantastic camera.
3.22. I have on my wall a 30X40 inch print taken with a nikon Z50 and samyang 12mm. I doubt very much any full frame could improve on it. I really couldn't want any more than what this picture is giving me.
I shoot full frame and apsc. Different experiences using a XT3, XH1 vs Leica Q-P and SL2. For tech nerds like myself the controls and UI is half the fun. Don’t look too much into format wars.
I do landscape and woodland with the Fuji X system. I'am happy with the results I can produce. I print regularly my photographs. Mostly A3. I do not have big walls to hang big prints on. A Fuji X system is still affordable and I can lift the total weight easily during long walks. Most photographs of my are shot with F8 and seldom F5.6. Shallow depth of field I do not need. Now with IA it is possible to print also realy big with images of a MFT or APSC system so why the need for bigger sensor. When I had the money to spend I would buy a medium format. That's a real upgrade :)) on dynamic range and tonal capacity.
I know how a sunset photo look with: a) my Olympus E-M5 Mark II and b) my Canon EOS 6D Mark II or my Sony A7 I know now what to take with me for sunset 🌅 photos ☺️ I made my choice but won’t tell you 🤪
I don’t know why m43 shooters find it so difficult to be honest with themselves about their chosen format. It's generally smaller and lighter. The IBIS tends to be more effective because of sensor size. The trade-off is image quality. With the massive amount of R&D being directed at the new full frame mirrorless systems, the image quality gap vis-a-vis smaller sensor formats is increasing while both the size/weight gap and the price gap are shrinking. Given this reality, it's not hard to understand why there is so much talk of full frame. Of course, not everyone needs a full frame camera. I agree with you. For many, m43 is good enough. For many more, a smartphone is good enough. But there is no need for disingenuous rationalizations. You don’t need to shoot at ISO 64,000 to tell the difference in noise performance between full frame and m43. At ISO 3200, the difference is obvious. And being able to crop in post while retaining high image quality is incredibly useful. An uncropped image is not imbued with some intrinsic artistic merit that is absent from a cropped image. Denying the benefit of cropping flexibility is willful ignorance. As for DOF, full frame shooters have no special need to focus stack. They can simply stop down to a smaller aperture. In most cases, each sensor format can achieve about the same DOF before diffraction sets in (and, even after diffraction sets in, a diffraction-limited FF 45MP image will offer more resolution than a m43 20MP sensor). As for the argument that advancements in sensor tech make today’s small sensor image “just as good” as older larger format images, this ignores the fact that the bar is always being raised. Standards are advancing. Yes, we can all point to a blurry, grainy, badly focused image of a classic moment and say, “See, that was shot with a manual focus lens and old school gear and it is still a classic!” but this is because of the moment, not the image quality (or lack thereof). The majority of older images are no longer up to par. Stock image sites, for example, are rejecting images today that would have been perfectly acceptable four or five years ago. Commercial clients now expect resolution far higher than 20MP. Put more simply, "good" image quality is a relative term.
Excellent video and so true. I'm going back to Olympus/Om once it arrives as been on order 3 months. Thanks for the video I'll be watching more of your stuff 👍🏻
Many of us are caught up in the quest for improved image quality and associate that with more pixels. My take on this subject is that a new paradigm could offer an alternative solution to massive sensors and file sizes. The advances in AI and machine learning offer new software such as Adobe's "Super Resolution: feature that has just been released. ON1 Photo Raw, Resize module also offers the ability to upsize pixel count and thus print sizes without degrading image quality , (within reason). I use this and the results are excellent. If this option becomes widely adopted then buying a camera with a nominal 20-24mMb sensor could be all that's needed for professional high dimension prints ??
I use a Canon 80D for portrait and landscape alike. I don't need a full frame body. For low light work that I do as a volunteer at a local civic theater, I use my Canon SL1 because it gives me better low light performance. Same with a local symphony that I contracted with for a season. I would like a full frame, but I don't //need// it. I know the limits of my gear and work within those limits.
To a larger degree FX is sales hype and often shouted loudest about by people who fail to understand many aspects of photography. Like you I'm not bashing FX, I shoot FX myself and within the last year actually bought the Nikon D850 or rather I should say I traded 2 x D750 that I used to shoot weddings with to largely finance the D850. Before buying I looked at all options including micro 4/3rds, mirrorless, DX etc. I'm now retired and also disabled, my images are now shot from within 50 yards of my car on a tripod so weight is not an issue. Ultimately given the money I have invested in Nikon F mount lenses balanced against my age and that the camera will be the last I ever buy it made sense for me to stay with FX Nikon. A good pal of mine shoots Olympus 4/3rds and kindly lent me some of his gear, it was superb but of course I shot it with an open mind but the costs of trading all my lenses and rebuying now I'm retired I couldn't justify it.
I'm a MFT shooter who recently purchased a full-frame body, mostly to shoot vintage glass, but I also have a few high-quality modern lenses. I agree with everything said in this video. One point struck me in particular that doesn't get mentioned much, i.e., aspect ratio. Maybe its in part because I have been shooting MFT for quit some time, but I have been struck by the somewhat awkward character of 3:2, especially in portrait mode. 4:3 seems much more natural to me. As the speaker says, you can always crop a 3:2 image, but half the joy of photography is seeing it and getting it right in camera.
Never used M4/3 am considering fuji XT-3. I have a couple of Nikon cameras (crop sensors) but will my images be any better if I spend thousands upon new camera and lenses? Don't think so.
I think they call it full frame to make themselves feel good about their over large lenses and weight because the reality is this, if you are using the correct lenses for your camera then they cover the full frame! Canon started this when they put an APS-C sensor in one of their 35mm bodies and of course, there was a crop due to the lens size. The XT5 can print beyond 50" on the long side without a problem. And besides, if you want super quality you would move to medium format or maybe go down the Joe Cornish route?
Dear Mr. Roberts, after your...a little bit diabolic HA, i have stopped the Video and have buy a Camera, Nikon Z7, with full frame sensor. I must say i am absolutely happy, wat for a dynamic and the ISO performance is splendid. But in my opinion, the Lenses are a little bit big and heavy and the Camera cost a lot of money, wat do you say to this facts? 🙂
I think it really comes down to what you're shooting. For a couple of years(photographing travel, cities, landscape) i was satisfied with the results i got from my Fuji's. However, for the last months, I have started shooting indoor sports(professional teams, national championship, etc) and the Fuji's just can't compete with FF. more noise, less depth of field, subpar af... A pity really because i enjoy these cameras.. But they are way behind older canon or nikon FF cameras.
Back in the day I used 35mm film than moved to Crop sensors in 2004, but was still utilised 35mm lenses. Considered m4/3 but didn’t see any advance on body size over crop, although lenses were a little smaller. Since 2016 use Full frame for specific tasks, and a Fuji for walking around street work. Being a bit of a sado I still pull out old medium format film cameras because I like the look of the results for some tasks. On balance I also prefer the look of full frame, this is of course subjective as there isn’t a right answer or a single solution.
I'd swap my m43 for a Sony a7r3 and a 24mm lens as that would be a pretty lightweight setup and the cropping potential would mostly rule out the need to carry other lenses. I often find scenes are changing too fast to compose carefully, especially where I see a moving subject heading for an advantageous place in the general scene eg in a street scene. And with landscapes I can see what I want in my composition without using a zoom lens. I could just take the wider scene and then crop later. Again, in street situations you often don't have time to frame up a shot before it's gone eg if it's across the other side of the road, so you can just get your 'decisive moment' (hopefully!) and crop later. Clean megapixels = flexibility, and when is some possible flexibility not welcome... Cheers for the good vids, and very good photography!
Same applies to smartphones then v MFT .....its just about the photographer so just use a phone...some good points on depth of field etc but no matter what anyone says MFT is dying out......
Thanks for the video! Appreciate this take and makig people understand that for most of us, 'the FF revolution' or 'affordable FF' is just marketing gimmicks; sony & canon aps-c cameras lost a lot of $1-2k market to fuji and even MFT. So now as silicon gets cheaper they're selling it by the square ft, making people think everyone needs it, when in fact, with better lenses and sensors, apsc or mft will be just as good in most cases while offering weight and cost benefits.
Hi Chris, just stumbled across your channel and really enjoy it immensly - love the Vlog walks especially. I own a Panasonic MFT and a Canon full frame and typically spend 99% of the time using the MFT. My style of shooting requires more depth of field and the full frame only really comes out during low-light occassions or if I am really after a particular shallow DoF look. I find the process of getting out and about and shooting photos and videos just as important as the end result and have noticed using MFT for a many years that I tend to spend more time getting the result rght in-camera and spending less time in post-production. Again it's knowing which tool to use for the right job - love your work!
Very good points, but there is also something that pushes me more into fullframe. The lens collection for mirrorless full frame is very good at this point while only Fuji is the only one one who has a real good APS-C lineup. I didn't use Mico 4/3 but for me as a sony APS-C shooter, I waitung for some good new primes for sony, but there are only full frame lenses :'(.
Thank God you are back and talking a lot of sense! The world has gone mad and I suspect photographer's have joined in too! Everybody has to have a full frame mirror less camera! thousands of pounds changes hands very quickly, it's not a problem when you are loaded with money, but hey all you are after is a decent picture and that's achieved by the photographer! I just wish there were more photographers on here that could talk for 20 minutes without showing pictures that were taken with a 10k camera and lens that's as big as a DSLR on it's own....thanks for your thoughts and info...
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm with you. Sticking to micro 4/3 for the weight and size advantage. Great to see you back on RUclips talking sense as ever.
There are advantages and disadvantages to all forms of photography but all said and done it's the photographer that makes the biggest difference
Great video, as usual...Just a small addition: being a macro-photographer I really appreciate the higher magnification factor and increased DoF of M4/3. In this field some of the much advertised Full Fram advantages turn out to be disadvantages instead. Something you really should consider if you plan to do some types of photography.
Yes! Landscape, macro, and street ALL benefit from MFT depth-of-field.
As a relative newcomer to photography (and an MFT user), I'm finding your videos extremely useful. Thank you.
Just the terminology full frame relating to 35mm makes me laugh, what numpty came up
with that? so is medium format fuller frame? it makes no sense, and where do the old half plate
cameras fit into this size formatting? a marketing ploy definitely at least to some degree.
My 35mm equivalent DSLR's spend most of the time sitting in the bag at home I'll stick with M43.
Half frame film cameras are with us since late 50s at least so "full frame" has to be at least that old in order for "half frame" to work as a term. Medium format is medium format, just like 35mm is small format and things bigger than medium are large format, it seems like it's a different level of categorising film/sensor sizes.
"Full Frame" was the unspoken default in the film days, using the standard 24x36mm image area. "Half Frame" distinguished those few cameras that took the same film but produced the smaller images. One must properly label their products, but nobody called a regular 35mm camera a "Full Frame" because they all were. So when digital cameras used the cheaper sensors of the APS size, that is what they were called. Consequently, you had to call the larger sensor *SOMETHING* and since it was the full image area we were used to from film, they simply called it "Full Frame" thereby indicating focal length equivalency. Some folks are pushing to refer to it as 35mm precisely because of the "what is full" argument, but I manage a bit of heartburn over that. After all, the larger image is 24x36, not 35. The 35 refers to the full width of the film, including sprocket holes. You don't have sprocket holes in your sensor, and to folks who did not grow up with film this would be meaningless.
Sure, you can call Medium Format "Fuller Format", then watch a 6x4.5 shooter argue image area merits with a 6x9 shooter.
I have been using Micro Four Thirds for a few years now and never felt I needed to upgrade to full-frame. I love the fact that I have less weight in my bag and never needed to print anything bigger than A3. M4/3 has me think more about my images.
The best camera is the one you have in your hand, FF M43 APSC etc is immaterial if the photographer doesn't know how to use it.
Sane words Mr McCarthy
Good to hear some common sense. Will stick with my d7500 crop sensor. Too.many mirrorless cameras and so few lenses
I consider I would have to spend around 6 thousand pounds to upgrade and without any guarantee of getting better pictures. Not for me at this stage. I must admit that nikon marketing is good but it's all to get you to spend loads of hard earned cash. Just my opinion
I always tought Mft was not good enough because all the big you tubers said so...but i bought one myself and i am more than happy with the results i get out of it.Also the quality of the olympus pro lenses is really unbeatable in my opinion.
Yes, Olympus makes great lenses' am hesitant to sell my first 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 zoom lens. When Olympus switched to the Micro system I was upset since I cannot use this lens.
I have a Nikon D7100 (an APS-C camera for those not familiar). There is an awful lot of pressure, from many sources, to upgrade to a full frame mirrorless and I have been tempted. However, following quite a few sleepless nights kept awake thinking about what I should do I have decided to stick with what I have and keep practising with it. At the end of the day I am not a professional photographer and my camera suits my needs and requirements so what would be the point? Videos like this are really very helpful so thank you very much indeed.
... sleepless nights, same here.😂, I thought I am the only one.
Though I don't shoot Nikon I actually support you in sticking to your D7100 as it is a camera with very good picture quality! And I always respect people who say their "not the latest and greatest" camera is good enough for them, these guy more often than not understand a thing or two in photography!
@@iczemi That's a relief to know!
@@dorianonthebike8448 Thanks...much appreciated.
The D7100 is a gem of a camera.
I have both FF and APSC, for different reasons. The FF old 6D is for low light (blue hour, indoor event etc) dof in portraits, and prints. My APSC Canon sl2 with pancake lens is for my street/travel/Instagram moments.
It largely depends on my goals and or circumstances. Note my FF is "old" why? Because for my style of shooting I see no need for the advantages of mirrorless. I take pictures of mostly subjects with no eyes like flowers and trees ( no need for eye auto detect). Oh and portraits I do take? Well they are often in a laid back relax setting were I control the pace, and can take my time on focusing (engagement, senior, branding). The key is knowing who you are as a photographer and what tool is right for you.
6D FTW! 🤘
I love my 6d. It's a low light beast.
Excellent video, I agree that FF is mostly unnecessary for the average hobbyist photographer. If you collect and shoot with MF vintage lenses with adapters like I do, a FF camera body has the advantage that the old lenses function as they were intended with correct aperture and focal length. I bought an a7II mostly for my old film lenses, but I agree with you. My results are really no better than my a6000 with APS-C lenses.
I guess I'm a hybrid since I have both MFT and FF (mirrorless). I grab my MFT about 75% of the time for landscape hiking, wildlife and a bit of street photography. I just recently purchased the Panny/Leica 100-400 for birding, which is wonderful considering the colossal FF equivalent. I tend to use FF for particular landscapes and/or when I know I'll be printing something very large which is only 20-25% of the time. I enjoy both systems very much.
I switched to full frame for two main reasons: 1) I deal with quite a bit of low light no flash allowed event photography that demands at least 1/160 second; and 2) I was lugging around two APSC cameras each with heavy constant f2.8 zooms to be able to cover the range I have noticed I covered the most during these events - 11-23. There is no APSC zoom in any APSC line that covers this requirement (at least back in January 2020 when I made the decision to switch). So now I have the pleasure of a very high ISO capable camera and only have to carry a single 16-35 zoom with dimensions and weight similar to one of the two APSC lenses I was carrying about.
Sense - and with humour!
I agree that you should not get a FF just because, just as you should not get mFT just because. Similarly some could argue that you don't need mFT either because you can use your mobile etc...(I don't agree with that) File sizes are not larger on a 24Mpx FF than on a 24Mpx mFT. My Sigma fp is smaller than a Olympus E-M1 and PEN F, a Sony A7III are roughly the size of E-M1. I got FF because that was what I wanted now after a decade with APS-C and I had the lenses to use (also using Sigma APS-C/APS-H cameras). Prices are not that different either for body or lenses (not talking flagship cameras). So it comes down to what you want, for landscape you don't need shallow DOF, but in other situations you do. But don't "upgrade" or "downgrade" gear just to relieve ones GAS. Better to upgrade oneself as a photographer. Watching e6 Vlogs is one thing to do :-)
Great video, I came down from Full Frame to Olympus OMD Micro 4/3rds and I defy anybody after showing them an Image to tell me what format it was taken on, the two issues you highlighted in the differences were correct, i e depth of field, size of finished printed photograph and cropping, I can print A3+ with edge to edge sharpness which are superb in detail and quality that I have not seen bettered, so you are spot on with your analysis, regards.
You are capable of taking truly wonderful pictures with the gear you use. Most photographers (if not almost all) look very pale with their intermediate pictures taken on any systems near you with your little MFT camera. Go on doing amazing stuff Craig!
I use both SONY A7III FF and Olympus EM1-III.
For most of the stuff I enjoy 10times more the Olympus who offer much more on site creativity and ability to carry more lenses with lower weight.
Having said that, I use the SONY A7III for "commando" shoots. By commando I refer for spots that I know I would like to have shallow depth of field as in most portraits shoots (outdoor) or for high speed shoots as socker at night with arteficial light going to ISO of 5000-8000 even with 70-200 F2.8 lens when shooting at speeds of 1/640 (would love faster however ISO is so high that 1/640 is a compromise).
One major disadvantage of Olympus cameras not related to sensor size is their relative poor ability to perform at continuous focus when human are invalved. Compared to Sony A7III not to mention the newer one A7III is almost 3 years old).
Another disadvantage (technology - not sure related to sensor size) is the lower ability to recover shadows in Olympus RAW VS Olympus relatively very old 20MP sensor that must be updated to more advanced technology.
So there is no weight and wrong. For landscape M43 is usually great. I enjoy shooting M43 much more, and use M43 or FF based on my needs
I think the same. everything is based on your needs. I also have the Olympus em1-3 and several “black leg” lenses. I know its pros and cons. so i will buy a sony a7III (or iv when it comes out). to use with family and dogs. the af and the af to the eye is sublime. Olympus needs to improve that. I'd buy a 55 1.8 and little else. for everything else, I use Olympus (macro, landscape and tele).
I dove head first into Olympus gear a year ago and couldn't be happier. Because, as you so rightly point out, it's not about the gear, it's about the photographer. Honestly your earlier videos are a major factor in what convinced me, because you always get such amazing results. Form, shape, story...that's really what it's about. The only thing I was missing for a while was being able to explore shallow DoF, but now that I've picked up a "nifty-25" 1.2, I get as much DoF range as I'd ever want.
My full frame Sony A7r3 requires two lenses to cover the 24mm to 200mm range. Most of the time I can get similar quality with my Em1mk3 and the 12-100 lens. With the Sony's inferior stabilisation I need f2.8 lenses for shooting in lowlight. They are not lightweight at 886gms and 1500 gms respectively for the 24-70 and 70-200. The Olympus 12-100 f4 weighs 561gms, but the stabilisation is so good, when combined with the EM1mk3 IBIS, that I can shoot handheld at up to one second. The best camera is the one you have with you. Unless I need shallow DOF or the greater dynamic range of the Sony, which is not often, I take my Olympus.
On the issue of cost. As a wildlife photographer we often hear M43 is the way to go. more "reach" lightweight and lower cost. Well let's look at this. Olympus EM1X best in class new price vs a Sony A9 2017 camera that offer still the best focus system on the market for ML. The Olympus 150-500 lens vs the Sony 200-600, yes it has a smaller f stop but the better ISO performance plus FF DOF bring the two on par as far as this is concerned. Same size, weight but the FF give better low light performance often required with wildlife and sport. No I am not against M43, I own an Olympus EM 1mii for travelling. My point is this, Not one system is perfect, and in photography or for that matter any art, is it about need only? The fact that people say they need to think more about their images when the use M43 or is it a matter of how do I work around limitations of the smaller sensor? any photographer using any gear have to "think" about their images. FF does not do anything automatic. So my view, using M43 and APS-C and FF, this debate is old and tired and each system and brand have a following and produce desired results. Some people shoot for clients that might have a specific need, but for the rest of us, we shoot for ourselves and we buy the equipment we want or can afford within respective budgets.
The cost of full frame is prohibitive. It seems to me the main reason to own full frame is to produce very large prints, but how many amateur photographers actually print their photos now anyway?
Tools are for using; ; pick the right tool for the job. Sometimes that's a smartphone, or an 8x10 film camera, or a MFT digital camera, or a 'medium format' digital camera. Or something else; everything has a trade-off. What do YOU need? I guarantee you don't need marketing hype.
I use vintage lenses- almost but not quite exclusively- and my brain still thinks in full frame terms, despite currently shooting APS-C. So I want FF because it's how I understand the focal length and I want mirrorless because I can use a lot more of those vintage lenses such as rangefinders due to flange distance. Otherwise, I would stick with APS-C. Is full frame best? No, but it is what I want.
Hi Craig, I switched back to full frame (Sony) after shooting MFT (OMD EM1 MkII) for a couple years. I originally got into MFT because I was traveling the world extensively for both business and vacations, and I wanted a more compact system with me. I have to say you make a compelling argument for MFT with landscape images. Some of my best images were shot with my 20MP EM1 MkII, and most people would never be able to tell them apart from my 61MP A7RM4. That being said, my chosen genre and personal style requires me to push and pull (including cropping) my images hard in post processing, and I find that full frame images can hold up to editing abuse better than MFT images. Plus I recently retired and travel less, so having a compact system is no longer a priority for me.
By the way, I started watching your channel when I switched to MFT, and I still do today. What you have to share goes beyond the MFT community. Keep up the great work Craig.
Having shot 4/3 and then micro 4/3 for over a decade along with full frame and crop I am pleasantly surprised on how much DR is in the new OMD-EM1 mark iii. It's so good that I have started using my newer Olympus for professional high end architecture jobs and so far can't see much difference in working with the files. My kit is now in a small bag and weighs very little compared to my full frame backpack that is very heavy.
What an excellent analysis of the current camera market. I have to say that there is a “Use Case” for just about every camera/sensor format, pixel count and lens option. That said, in my case I am sticking with M43, as it is the best trade off in terms of quality, size/weight, cost and features. I had a loan of the new Panasonic full frame and was able to spend 2 weeks comparing to my trusty Olympus omd em1 and the GH9. I honestly couldn’t see an appreciable betterment in picture quality nor justify the upgrade? Not only to myself but to my financial controller. I’m not a professional photographer, so it’s not mission critical to have the hip gear to impress a client........in a world that is turning to imperfect lenses for a different / retro look. The only person I need to please is myself.
I switched from nikon fullframe to fuji APSC few months ago. Very happy about reduced weight and easier handling, IQ difference is negligible (fuji might be even better because their in-camera jpeg is better than what I can get from nikon raws). I don't think I'll ever think about returning to FF or upgrading to medium format. You're totally right that FF is an obsession, it certainly was for me.
I went with a 4/3 system when I switched from film back in 2005 and then gradually shifted to m4/3 after 2012. Two reasons I have stayed with m4/3; lens quality (Olympus) and ergonomics. I never gave sensor size a second thought because I trust the equipment, hardware and software, to give me the results I want. I actually went with Olympus digital because my first Olympus 4/3 system reminded me of the ergonomics of my old Nikon FE. I've never been a Canon fan because of the ergonomics and I didn't like the direction Nikon went in digital for the same reason.
Frankly, I don't believe the human eye can tell the difference, without extremely close examination, between a 4/3 sensor and a 35mm (arbitrary size which has no connection to 35mm film in spite of what marketing would have us believe) sensor and no one has been able to convince me otherwise.
Love my FF for the woodland detail. I would invest in MFT if I climbed mountains, shot vistas or did long hikes where MFT makes sense for weight saving. If I did street or tourism than would also use MFT. The purpose of your photography should determine what you invest in, plus your budget.
Techno nerds are the only ones that think they need it. If you see a image just take it
Full frame? Ha! You NEED medium format!
A very interesting video. I listened carefully to the arguments you presented. I bow to your years of experience. Thanks.
Yes you’ve saved me a lot of cash Craig as I was thinking of “upgrading “ to full frame a few months ago but was dissuaded by your sensible arguments. Thank you 😊
I’ve spent six months deciding on my next camera and I went into it “knowing” it had to be full frame. I’ve done a ton of research, thought long and hard, weighing up pros and cons. I have systematically disassembled my argument for full frame to the point where I’m now about to by an X-T3 because I strongly think for my purposes it’s about perfect. Excellent video and thank you.
ive had an X-T3 since its release and i love it. i do landscapes and adapt vintage lenses, created several monochrome film simulations. the user experience surpassed my expectations.
XT-3 is not full frame. Fuji have no full frame cameras. Their next size up is medium format.
Nice well balanced video. In 2019 I switched from full frame to Fujifilm after a lot of research and trying various cameras. I figured out for 90% of what I shoot crop sensor or full frame made no difference. One of the reasons for choosing Fujifilm was dedicated crop sensor lens unlike some manufacturers who seem to force you to select full frame lens to get the best lens they sell. Another reason was weight. I have kept my eos 6d full frame and one lens for Astro photography and I can’t see my self ever moving away from a full frame for Astro shots.
i went from full frame canon to fuji for a couple of reasons size and weight been the main one, value for money been another. if you have money to burn on full frame go for it but id rather buy a train ticket and go take some photos :)
Love your point of view
I totally agree but where people find enjoyment in photography varies. For me, trying to get the best photos I can with the equipment I have (mft) is the goal and there is still a long way to go 😂
I love my small Nikon D3500 crop. It sure does have its shortcomings and I was tempted to switch to FF but this camera makes me learn different post processing techniques and to be creative.
Good arguments, and once spinal doctors join discussion MFT will ultimately beat FF. Save all other arguments, how much pain is caused by FF carrying? I have APS-C and MFT, and when carrying APS-C on all-day walks, I can already sense a lot of difference.
I am a Chinese user of the MFT system. I just started buying and using Olympus cameras last winter. I am a latecomer to the MFT system (even if there is a problem with the Olympus operation). I have always been a full-frame amateur user before, and I own photographic equipment worth more than one million yuan. Later, in the winter of last year, I saw that the Olympus camera department might be closed down. I was worried that I would not be able to buy new Olympus cameras in the future, so I bought 5 EM1Mark3 at a time and matched three Olympus Pro F1.2, 12-100 and Leica 12F1.4 lens (my camera is equipped with a lens).
After using an Olympus camera, I feel like I’m so late to meet each other. Because I didn’t know that Olympus cameras work well for many years! Now, my FF camera is idled in the electronic moisture-proof box.
In the various lively photography community forums in China, many people are divided into two groups, and everyone is always arguing and contesting the pros and cons of the FF and MFT systems. FF users always attack MFT system users constantly, mocking MFT system users for "bad picture quality", such as high noise, low light environment, low pixel quantity, low color bit rate, etc. (MFT is only 12bit, FF has 14 bit). MFT users laughed at FF users for the clumsy lens!
Maybe I belong to an alternative, I also want to buy a few more Olympus fuselages for storage (I am worried that I will not be able to buy them in the future). Now the price of EM1Mark3 in China is between 1200-1300 US dollars, and it will be lower later. China can buy brand new third-party-made batteries at any time, the price is between 4-5 US dollars, I will buy ten spare batteries at a time (buy three batteries to give a travel charger).
I like to use Olympus very much, and I left my FF camera idle!
Good comment
Hi I'm also in China and want to buy a an newer body Olympus camera. I've had my eye on both the em1x and the mark 3 for a while now, and I might be ready to dive into the mark 3. I wanted to ask if you knew what places I am more likely to find Olympus cameras to try or rent? Taobao doesn't have 1 seller who is renting high end Olympus gear, and many on Xianyu dont accept returns. So I'm left with either buying it new to try it out, then reselling in case I dont like it. I'm in the guangdong area in Shenzhen, and even in Hua Qiang Bei I could not find one em1x or em1 mark3. I'm dying to try out these cameras!
@@JoshuaFernandez11 I am in England so can't really help. Your best bet might be to go second hand and maybe go for the
E M1 mkii which is a good price second hand.
@@JoshuaFernandez11 Hi, regarding the camera rental business, it is less popular in this type of market in China.
Because in the Chinese commodity market nicknamed "World Factory", various commodities are too abundant, and many of its commodities are not expensive for consumers compared to other countries. Therefore, Chinese consumers like to buy new products directly or buy second-hand products.
On "Xianyu", another second-hand online shopping platform under Alibaba, a small number of professional second-hand dealers carry out leasing business. I looked up and did not find a dealer operating Olympus camera rental. Maybe Chinese consumers think that Olympus cameras are not too expensive, and most people choose to buy and use them directly, without considering choosing to rent them. This is different from the style and habits of consumers in other countries.
My personal opinion of choosing Olympus is: I usually like or need to prefer more sports and animal photography subjects, I can choose Olympus M1X; if there are no other special shooting requirements, I can choose smaller size and more Lightweight 1M3, which can meet most of the daily photography themes.
If you choose a second-hand Olympus M1X or 1M3 on the "Xianyu" platform, the price will be much cheaper than the new one! Because Chinese camera users often blindly follow the trend of full-frame fashion, and thus abandon MFT cameras and lenses at very cheap prices. As long as anyone is interested in second-hand Chinese cameras and equipment, they can choose a variety of photographic equipment with lower prices and better quality than anywhere else in the world. Because these goods do not require tax! Including the brand new things I buy online, I don’t need to pay taxes!
@@zarrow50 On the Chinese online shopping platform, the shutter only uses EM1M2 less than 2,000 times, which only costs 400-500 USD, while the brand new one only costs 500-600 USD. The used Pro f1.2 series lens is 99% new and the lens is perfect. As new, only about 600-650USD is needed. The price of 12-100Pro f4 is similarly close. No taxes are required.
FF is the gold of fools! Nothing is more hilarious than seeing beginners walking with GIANT and expensive equipment that they don't even know how to use. These beginners, as well as many professionals were convinced and deceived that EVERYONE needs an FF camera! What is not true.
bullshit. like how difficult is to learn how to use it?
Which giant FF cameras would that be then?
@@innstikk those with GIANT Wildlife lenses for example.
Why would a beginner need to start with an entry model?
@@warrenswales5693 maybe they should start with a Medium Format Camera and not with a crop entry level FF! 🤪
In older days full frame, as it is now marketed, was called small format!
When 24x36mm was released all real photographers were making fun out of it. History repeats itself with m43 and APS-C.
Every camera system has his pros and cons.
The only important to marketeers is dynamic range and the number of MP's they can squeeze into a sensor. Even m43 cameras have a greater dynamic range as we were used to film and let's not forget the # of MP your EVF has... and finally how bokehlicious your lens is wide open. Nowadays the out of focus areas are more important than what is in focus!
Nice video and thoughts as always. In the film days FF equalled 24x36, APSC equalled half frame (original Olympus Pen).
Mft was a size named 110. But that was a long ago, with a different technology. Love my Panasonig GX series. / Ulf
Beside the 35mm film camera of my parents (and some film travel cameras) I used some point-and-shoot digital cameras. And then I came to Olympus. Since then, I stayed with Olympus and I'm happy. Don't need any more. Not more shallow depth of field, not more weight. Nice background blur can also be achieved with my MFT gear. Not so much, but enough for me.
I agree with you on the constant marketing ploy camera company's try with us photographers , you need to up grade all the time !! If I have to pay twice as much for a upgrade I expect the image quality to be twice as good to other wise what's the point ?
I bought a full frame mirrorless camera last year, mainly for night landscape photography and have to say the images are much cleaner. However, I find I've gone back to my Lumix for carrying on walks as the weight is hardly noticed by comparison. Looking back, my first digital camera was an Olympus 5mp in 2004 and this produced some of my best images ever (so long as I don't want to print large). As you say, horses for courses. Very useful video Craig.
Just yesterday at my camera store, while looking at gear, I was helped by someone other than my normal salesperson. It was interesting that the very same "pitch" you began with was the same as the salesperson used - that the new Sony full frame was a much better camera than my 4/3rds. If I was a new person to photography, I would have been inclined to listen and possibly buy a new, expensive Sony full frame along with the bigger and heavier lenses. But I find it rare that I will be blowing any of my shots to 30" X 40", the more or less print size limit for 4/3rds. In fact, I have yet to go larger than 20" X 24". The reason I should take on more size, more weight, and more cost is for what? More pixels I will not need? Less depth of field that I usually don't need or use? More ISO even though I rarely shoot even at 6400? The extra weight so that I can get in shape easier? Maybe I will forego that pressing "need" that the salesperson put on me to buy a full frame camera.
I switched from a FF DSLR to a APSC mirrorless (Nikon Z50) and love it. It’s so light and small I can almost put it in my pocket. Only “lost” about 3mp with switching (24 to 20.9) so not a big deal with that. Hopefully Nikon will add a few more DX lenses, but for now I’m plenty happy with the switch.
I have both full frame and micro 4/3s. The quality from both is excellent but I'm finding when I go out I tend to take the micro 4/3s rather than the full frame, this is partly due to a shoulder injury so weight is important. Craigs photographs prove taking excellent images doesn't necessarily mean you need full frame.
M4/3 (G100) for a lot of work I do and video... full frame Leica for the shooting experience. I’ve used them all and there’s a lot of truth to what you say. Focus on composition, story telling, and overcoming obstacles
Nah, you just need a camera. Doesn't matter what kind or type.
Far be it for me to say you're wrong as this is a subjective topic. I switched from M43 a couple of years ago to a full-frame Sony Alpha and the difference in quality was staggering. I wanted a camera that suited working with models in the studio and also for nature and landscapes - a good all-rounder. I've never looked back and am very happy with my decision.
I'd say your spot on:)
You too!
I am using my OMD E-M5 with no interest in an upgrade of any sort. I shoot a considerable amount of low light and the thing that I find makes the biggest impact is the lens that I am using. I purchased an Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens and that has made a huge impact. My wife gave me a Panasonic 25mm f1.4 as a gift and now when the light is really low I use that. The other night I was out taking a shot of an old church in the country with no moon. I used the 1.4 with an exposure of 30 minutes and the results were so clean that I didn't need to use noise reduction in post! The camera is just a tool and learning how to use it is the best thing a person can do to make good images. Thanks for another great video filled with level headed content.
I’m just a hobbyist. I went full frame because I wanted a 24mm (35mm equivalent) for my aps-c Nikon. I noticed that I could buy a D700 for the same price. I already had an old 35mm AI lens. The D700 will meter with old manual lenses. So I just used what I had with a D700.
A 20 mp olympus sensor vs 20mp full frame sensor? the pixel size on a full frame sensor is roughly 3 times bigger allowing it to capture more light, that's why it's better in low light. A 50MM FF LENS HAS THE SAME DEPTH OF FIELD AS AN OLYMPUS 50MM LENS,OLYMPUS USES A 25MM LENSE TO ACHIEVE 50MM FF ACCUIVELANT. A 25 MM OLYMPUS LENS HAS MORE DISTORTION THAN A 50MM FF LENS THIS IS WHY YOU CANT USE OLYMPUS LENSES ON FF BODY.
I went from an APS-C enthusiast camera (Sony A65) to a FF pro body for a list of reasons. Ironically one was value and cost. I was able to purchase a used, 42 mp full frame camera that used several of my existing lenses for less than a new mirror less APS-C plus having to buy all new lenses. Because I didn’t buy a mirror less I was able to purchase several more excellent used lenses to replace any that didn’t make the transition. Each lens was less than $200 each and carefully chosen. In total, all the lenses and the body was only a few hundred more than a new Sony A6600. Here’s my kit list;
Sony A99ii (the key was getting this body for a fantastic price)
Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4
Tamron SP 28-75 f/2.8
Minolta 28-105 f/3.5-4.5
Sony 50mm f/1.4
Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Macro
Tamron SP 70-300 f/4-5.6
I have a FF camera. 2 to be honest, a canon 5DmkII which I inherited and a canon RP that I use with vintage lenses I own. I also bought a Fuji X100V which as amazing dynamic range and low light ISO performances, but M43 is what I always bring with me: my pen F and my GX9 are the cameras I enjoy the most because they are small and the primes are tiny.
The X100v will soon go on e-bay, with 870 shots in 2 years, because I really don't like a camera without IBIS and I find the dials and knobs, which I love on my old film camera, an inconvenient gimmick that brings no purpose. Both the Pen F and the GX9 are better built then the so vaunted X100V that seems made of tin cans.
The RP has good low light performances but bad dynamic range and, unless you pick REALLY expensive lenses the average quality is certainly worse then in the M43 system.
My first camera was the Olympus OM2n with a then growing set of good Olympus OM lenses. The better-than-state-of-the-art technology convinced me to stay with Olympus up to now with their MFT system. Its just fun to use PM2, EP5, PEN F, OM-D M1.. with fine Olympus MFT lenses. Being able to still use my excellent OM portrait, wide angle, and macro lenses without this otherwise welcomed "focal 2 factor" was the only reason why I also bought a SONY A7r. But guess what - the A7r is suffering a dreary lonely drawer live without any hope to be surprised by a new A7xxx buddy.
hi, I'm a happy owner of 2 Panasonic Lumix micro four thirds, the GF1 and the GX8, which are absolutely fine for my photography. I also own a Mamiya 645 S,that due to the great weight and bulk, even of the lenses, I decided to sell to buy later a Sigma DP Merrill, which is able to produce, from what I read in the comments, photographs that have nothing to envy to a medium format. What do you think? Thanks
I think part of the attraction of full frame for many photographers is in the name; “Full Frame”. It implies that it is the ultimate and that everything else is, well, “not full”! Of course, full frame is just another sensor size, as Fujifilm have recognised, by eschewing full frame and going directly from Aps-c to medium format. Mind you, what is “medium format”? Is it “digital medium format”? (Not that much bigger than full frame), or 6 x 4.5”, or 6x7, or 6x9...😂. At the end of the day, the camera and lenses are just tools. You pick the right combination to get the job done. Anyway, hasn’t Adobe’s “Super Resolution” changed the whole debate? You want good dynamic range, high resolution and light weight / portability? Just go for a low megapixel APS-C or M43 system and “super resolutionise” them in Camera Raw. It’s all a digital workflow anyway, until the final print appears on paper, so it doesn’t really matter how much of it happens in-camera and how much on the computer, does it?
I started with Nikon APSC (D100) then the D200 and then I went M4/3 - first Panasonic then Olympus. What I missed with both APSC and M4/3 was a reasonable prices ultrawide lens. So some years ago I went back to Nikon D810 got all the lenses I need for that. Unfortunately I got sick last year and needed something light to carry around and went to Fuji ... which is great by it’s neither Olympus nor Nikon - I got it as everyone was saying that it’s better than the next coming (silly me).
I like FF as it does give me some flexibility, I primarily like the colors Nikon produces (just me, I know), and I have it the same way with Olympus M4/3 - unfortunately their very nice zooms cost the same as I have paid for most of my Nikon glas (2nd hand). Today I’d probably get an Olympus setup instead of my Fuji ....
It’s not always the tool you use, it’s how you use it. FF / MF does produce some great photos, but if you can’t hit the nail with a hammer then it does not matter how nice a hammer you got.
I sort of went the other way too. I have FF Canon 5D classic and a Leica M Type 262. The Leica simply because I love Leica, have for 25 years. But both are good sized cameras. My most used cameras are the Olympus Pen F and a Sony A6600 APS-C. The Oly Pen goes in a tiny Peak Design 3 liter Everyday Sling bag along with three lenses. Truly a small kit to take along. The Sony A6600 goes when I need long reach, up to the Sony 200-600 G zoom. A fabulous lens. I never feel under equipped with either of the smaller cameras.
Thank you for another great video. I like your videos because they most often point us to what's really practical.
Indeed I do not need a full frame. I got an EOS M6 and got some bonus money, and trying to figure out, if I should buy just a better lens than the kit lens, or upgrade to a full frame. Well I have been looking around at reviews all over the place. After all this research (including DPREVIEW comparative tool), I incline more and more for going for Canon RP, with a Canon EF 24-105MM F4L II USM lens. In the end the quality and performance is higher. Not by much. To me it appears, in this domain, no matter what one does, but if one wants to improve quality by an "inch", one has to increase the pay by a "foot"; it feels that way.
Horses for courses. I have a (by modern standards) low megapixel D700 which produces lovely images and cost me £400 for a mint example. Full frame for peanuts. But I use an APS D500 for wildlife to give me the reach without having to remortgage the house to buy a good 500mm lens. I do think the full frame D850 would allow me to track a bird in flight more easily and then crop, retaining the resolution of a D500, but the cost would be double that of the APS body to give me that one benefit (and I’d need the grip the replicate the focus speed and FPS).
I only just found your channel and wanted to say thanks for being a voice of reason in the FF culture wars. I've given up trying to argue with the Canikony sales machine that is hell bent on assimilating us all into the FF universe, so it's nice to see from your video and the comments that I'm not alone. I was a Canon APSC user from my first DSLR but in time, as it became clear that Canon were never going to support their APSC bodies with dedicated pro standard EF-S lenses, I had to decide whether to go FF or change system to Fuji or m43. Long story short - I traded my Canon gear in for an E-M1 mk2 and a couple of Zuiko Pro zooms. They aren't a lot lighter or smaller than my APSC kit was but as a system they give better IQ than I had with my Canon kit. I still have the Panasonic GX-80 two-zoom kit that I bought to dip my toes in the m43 water as a super lightweight & compact backup kit. I realise that m43 won't suit everyone but for a landscaper/generalist on a budget, it's a system with a lot of plus points compared to FF.
I've also become aware that I am 3x2 averse - I don't crop to square so much but I do like to crop to 5x4 portrait a lot. On m43 that crop results in a much smaller percentage of pixels lost compared to the same crop on APSC.
I use m43 and fuji x on digital and 4x5 and 5x7 on film. I have sold my full frame cameras (eos5d and 8x10) because i want lighter and still capable tools.
You're absolutely right.
What can a full frame give me that I can't get on a micro 4/3?
Four months ago, I bought Olympus for only one project - harsh winter shooting in the Arctic Circle. I thought it was just for this. But... now my Nikon z7 is in my bag and I haven't touched it all this time.
I like the compact, lightweight and excellent Olympus pro series lenses.
Мy choice is a micro 4/3 and a 6x6 film camera .
Hello again! I shoot both an Olympus EM5 Mkii and a Nikon D5500 (APSC). I'm an amateur and shoot primarily landscapes and plants. But I have strayed towards the siren's call of wildlife photography (mainly birds). I blame myself mainly, but I get lots of noise when shooting birds on the Olympus (with 75-300mm long lens) at pre-dawn and post-sunset (direct sunlight = no problem). Therefore the lure of the full-frame becomes stronger when I include astrophotography into the mix. Yet, full-frame long lenses are way beyond my reach and I am convinced that my Olympus shoots far better than I. I'm am determined to get better results from the M43 format and beginner lenses. When I grow up, I'll buy into better lenses and maybe upgrade the camera as well (I better hurry up since retirement is only a few years away). Until then, I'll keep watching your videos since you are such a great teacher. Thank you.
I use Sony A7r4 and PenF actively. Both almost daily. All my serious work is done with the Sony since technically speaking the photograph is always better from Sony and I aspire to create the best possible photograph - sharpness, dynamic range, resolution, high iso performance, lens quality, AF.... The only benefit (aside from being cheaper which actually reflects the product performace) underperform in AF, resolution DR etc...nascent 8K screen resolution will bring requirement for 32Mpx resolution which will put additional stress on the format (have you looked at your 10MPx images from early '00 lately?) as Sony is unwilling to supply current generations of sensors to Pana and Olympus due to their low (and decreasing) production volumes. With so much R&D being put behind FF, m43 will lag behind more and more. It does not make me happy. I would love to see a new PenF for my own personal use but the truth is that it will never come and even today when I compare photographs from the PenF with those from Sony RX1r2 (also several years old camera by now) I am a little bit sad I did not shoot it with the FF RX1. However, if you are enjoying your photography with m43, just keep having fun and don't succumb to the marketing buzz. At the same time, be aware that in terms of performance FF actually delivers on a different level and make peace with a fact that you do not need that. Maybe that is a good thing rather than something to undermine your self value...
I decided to go Mirrorless, As a Canon lover who owned a 7D I opted for the M5, Great camera but for a 6'5" person with big hands it just felt wrong, SO, I now have the much hated EOS R (Not the 5 or 6) and I can honestly say it feels great in the hand but I really can't notice any improvement in image quality over the M5
I've gone back to 35mm film from D4 and D800. The reason? I prefer the format. Its not better just different. For my digital work I use a d7000 ( apsc 16mp) which is more than adequate because I use good glass .
100% My APS-C Fuji XT-3 does everything I need and I am soooo happy to not have to lug around a massive kit. There's a handful of myths rolling around out there about what gear you *need* when you get started in landscape photography: you need FF, you HAVE to shoot on a tripod, You MUST print H U G E! None of these are true.
I made the switch to full frame in 2013 (Nikon D800) and then switched to Fuji in late 2016. In 2013, I just felt that the smaller sensors weren't ready to keep up with full frame, but that changed very quickly. Then when I started having health problems, the full-frame equipment was just too heavy for me to carry around all the time and I decided to go with Fuji. That's still where I am today and I haven't regretted it. For what I shoot (travel, landscape, now and then architecture) the smaller sensor is more than sufficient and the quality of Fuji's cameras and lenses is excellent. I don't think I'll switch back to full frame, although I still have my D800 and think it's a fantastic camera.
3.22. I have on my wall a 30X40 inch print taken with a nikon Z50 and samyang 12mm. I doubt very much any full frame could improve on it. I really couldn't want any more than what this picture is giving me.
I shoot full frame and apsc. Different experiences using a XT3, XH1 vs Leica Q-P and SL2. For tech nerds like myself the controls and UI is half the fun. Don’t look too much into format wars.
I do landscape and woodland with the Fuji X system.
I'am happy with the results I can produce. I print regularly my photographs. Mostly A3. I do not have big walls to hang big prints on.
A Fuji X system is still affordable and I can lift the total weight easily during long walks.
Most photographs of my are shot with F8 and seldom F5.6. Shallow depth of field I do not need.
Now with IA it is possible to print also realy big with images of a MFT or APSC system so why the need for bigger sensor.
When I had the money to spend I would buy a medium format. That's a real upgrade :)) on dynamic range and tonal capacity.
I know how a sunset photo look with:
a) my Olympus E-M5 Mark II and
b) my Canon EOS 6D Mark II or my Sony A7
I know now what to take with me for sunset 🌅 photos ☺️
I made my choice but won’t tell you 🤪
I don’t know why m43 shooters find it so difficult to be honest with themselves about their chosen format. It's generally smaller and lighter. The IBIS tends to be more effective because of sensor size. The trade-off is image quality. With the massive amount of R&D being directed at the new full frame mirrorless systems, the image quality gap vis-a-vis smaller sensor formats is increasing while both the size/weight gap and the price gap are shrinking. Given this reality, it's not hard to understand why there is so much talk of full frame.
Of course, not everyone needs a full frame camera. I agree with you. For many, m43 is good enough. For many more, a smartphone is good enough. But there is no need for disingenuous rationalizations. You don’t need to shoot at ISO 64,000 to tell the difference in noise performance between full frame and m43. At ISO 3200, the difference is obvious. And being able to crop in post while retaining high image quality is incredibly useful. An uncropped image is not imbued with some intrinsic artistic merit that is absent from a cropped image. Denying the benefit of cropping flexibility is willful ignorance. As for DOF, full frame shooters have no special need to focus stack. They can simply stop down to a smaller aperture. In most cases, each sensor format can achieve about the same DOF before diffraction sets in (and, even after diffraction sets in, a diffraction-limited FF 45MP image will offer more resolution than a m43 20MP sensor).
As for the argument that advancements in sensor tech make today’s small sensor image “just as good” as older larger format images, this ignores the fact that the bar is always being raised. Standards are advancing. Yes, we can all point to a blurry, grainy, badly focused image of a classic moment and say, “See, that was shot with a manual focus lens and old school gear and it is still a classic!” but this is because of the moment, not the image quality (or lack thereof). The majority of older images are no longer up to par. Stock image sites, for example, are rejecting images today that would have been perfectly acceptable four or five years ago. Commercial clients now expect resolution far higher than 20MP. Put more simply, "good" image quality is a relative term.
Excellent video and so true. I'm going back to Olympus/Om once it arrives as been on order 3 months. Thanks for the video I'll be watching more of your stuff 👍🏻
Many of us are caught up in the quest for improved image quality and associate that with more pixels. My take on this subject is that a new paradigm could offer an alternative solution to massive sensors and file sizes.
The advances in AI and machine learning offer new software such as Adobe's "Super Resolution: feature that has just been released.
ON1 Photo Raw, Resize module also offers the ability to upsize pixel count and thus print sizes without degrading image quality , (within reason). I use this and the results are excellent.
If this option becomes widely adopted then buying a camera with a nominal 20-24mMb sensor could be all that's needed for professional high dimension prints ??
I use a Canon 80D for portrait and landscape alike. I don't need a full frame body. For low light work that I do as a volunteer at a local civic theater, I use my Canon SL1 because it gives me better low light performance. Same with a local symphony that I contracted with for a season. I would like a full frame, but I don't //need// it. I know the limits of my gear and work within those limits.
I'm just now moving "down" to m4/3rds from FF. Old Oly cams @12 mps. I'm having a blast & my back is very thankful.
To a larger degree FX is sales hype and often shouted loudest about by people who fail to understand many aspects of photography. Like you I'm not bashing FX, I shoot FX myself and within the last year actually bought the Nikon D850 or rather I should say I traded 2 x D750 that I used to shoot weddings with to largely finance the D850. Before buying I looked at all options including micro 4/3rds, mirrorless, DX etc. I'm now retired and also disabled, my images are now shot from within 50 yards of my car on a tripod so weight is not an issue. Ultimately given the money I have invested in Nikon F mount lenses balanced against my age and that the camera will be the last I ever buy it made sense for me to stay with FX Nikon. A good pal of mine shoots Olympus 4/3rds and kindly lent me some of his gear, it was superb but of course I shot it with an open mind but the costs of trading all my lenses and rebuying now I'm retired I couldn't justify it.
I'm a MFT shooter who recently purchased a full-frame body, mostly to shoot vintage glass, but I also have a few high-quality modern lenses. I agree with everything said in this video. One point struck me in particular that doesn't get mentioned much, i.e., aspect ratio. Maybe its in part because I have been shooting MFT for quit some time, but I have been struck by the somewhat awkward character of 3:2, especially in portrait mode. 4:3 seems much more natural to me. As the speaker says, you can always crop a 3:2 image, but half the joy of photography is seeing it and getting it right in camera.
Why 35mm? Marry the glass, date the body. Outstanding vintage glass has a more useable angle of view on 35mm than on M43.
Never used M4/3 am considering fuji XT-3. I have a couple of Nikon cameras (crop sensors) but will my images be any better if I spend thousands upon new camera and lenses? Don't think so.
I think they call it full frame to make themselves feel good about their over large lenses and weight because the reality is this, if you are using the correct lenses for your camera then they cover the full frame! Canon started this when they put an APS-C sensor in one of their 35mm bodies and of course, there was a crop due to the lens size. The XT5 can print beyond 50" on the long side without a problem. And besides, if you want super quality you would move to medium format or maybe go down the Joe Cornish route?
I'm very happy with APSC . Those who want full frame in it's glory should perhaps try an 8 X 10 plate film camera. . . :-)
Dear Mr. Roberts, after your...a little bit diabolic HA, i have stopped the Video and have buy a Camera, Nikon Z7, with full frame sensor. I must say i am absolutely happy, wat for a dynamic and the ISO performance is splendid. But in my opinion, the Lenses are a little bit big and heavy and the Camera cost a lot of money, wat do you say to this facts? 🙂
I think it really comes down to what you're shooting. For a couple of years(photographing travel, cities, landscape) i was satisfied with the results i got from my Fuji's. However, for the last months, I have started shooting indoor sports(professional teams, national championship, etc) and the Fuji's just can't compete with FF. more noise, less depth of field, subpar af... A pity really because i enjoy these cameras.. But they are way behind older canon or nikon FF cameras.
Back in the day I used 35mm film than moved to Crop sensors in 2004, but was still utilised 35mm lenses. Considered m4/3 but didn’t see any advance on body size over crop, although lenses were a little smaller. Since 2016 use Full frame for specific tasks, and a Fuji for walking around street work. Being a bit of a sado I still pull out old medium format film cameras because I like the look of the results for some tasks. On balance I also prefer the look of full frame, this is of course subjective as there isn’t a right answer or a single solution.
I'd swap my m43 for a Sony a7r3 and a 24mm lens as that would be a pretty lightweight setup and the cropping potential would mostly rule out the need to carry other lenses. I often find scenes are changing too fast to compose carefully, especially where I see a moving subject heading for an advantageous place in the general scene eg in a street scene. And with landscapes I can see what I want in my composition without using a zoom lens. I could just take the wider scene and then crop later. Again, in street situations you often don't have time to frame up a shot before it's gone eg if it's across the other side of the road, so you can just get your 'decisive moment' (hopefully!) and crop later. Clean megapixels = flexibility, and when is some possible flexibility not welcome... Cheers for the good vids, and very good photography!
Same applies to smartphones then v MFT .....its just about the photographer so just use a phone...some good points on depth of field etc but no matter what anyone says MFT is dying out......
Thanks for the video! Appreciate this take and makig people understand that for most of us, 'the FF revolution' or 'affordable FF' is just marketing gimmicks; sony & canon aps-c cameras lost a lot of $1-2k market to fuji and even MFT. So now as silicon gets cheaper they're selling it by the square ft, making people think everyone needs it, when in fact, with better lenses and sensors, apsc or mft will be just as good in most cases while offering weight and cost benefits.
I said if I don't have full frame I'm just guanna die! Then I got a Pentax 645Z medium format and produced a tack sharp door sized print. Enough said?
Hi Chris, just stumbled across your channel and really enjoy it immensly - love the Vlog walks especially. I own a Panasonic MFT and a Canon full frame and typically spend 99% of the time using the MFT. My style of shooting requires more depth of field and the full frame only really comes out during low-light occassions or if I am really after a particular shallow DoF look. I find the process of getting out and about and shooting photos and videos just as important as the end result and have noticed using MFT for a many years that I tend to spend more time getting the result rght in-camera and spending less time in post-production. Again it's knowing which tool to use for the right job - love your work!
Very good points, but there is also something that pushes me more into fullframe. The lens collection for mirrorless full frame is very good at this point while only Fuji is the only one one who has a real good APS-C lineup. I didn't use Mico 4/3 but for me as a sony APS-C shooter, I waitung for some good new primes for sony, but there are only full frame lenses :'(.
Thank God you are back and talking a lot of sense! The world has gone mad and I suspect photographer's have joined in too! Everybody has to have a full frame mirror less camera! thousands of pounds changes hands very quickly, it's not a problem when you are loaded with money, but hey all you are after is a decent picture and that's achieved by the photographer! I just wish there were more photographers on here that could talk for 20 minutes without showing pictures that were taken with a 10k camera and lens that's as big as a DSLR on it's own....thanks for your thoughts and info...