If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, your camera will be so light that when a hawk grabs it off your shoulder strap and flies away with it, you'll be slightly less devastated due to the lower cost. Panasonic GH6 bhpho.to/3LI6cc7 Olympus OM-1 amzn.to/3gW4dCT or bhpho.to/3H2adVf Olympus EM1 III amzn.to/3rxEXJn or bhpho.to/3dp7UPL Olympus 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 amzn.to/3oILuix or bhpho.to/3u2pfr5 Sony A7S III bhpho.to/3yeUW0q Sony 100-400mm GM f4.5-5.6 amzn.to/3ISX6a7 or bhpho.to/3IQRQ6Y Sony 2x Teleconverter amzn.to/3h9qm0F or bhpho.to/3hhMrda Zeiss Batis 25mm f2 amzn.to/3fz3iHF or bhpho.to/3GnpNuq or used! bhpho.to/3H1UYeQ Fuji XT4 amzn.to/31wORkb or bhpho.to/3mXJUs0 Fuji 70-300mm bhpho.to/3qoRhen All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com/shop/vegetablepolice
I’m so glad that you are probably one of the very few TH-camrs willing to do side by side wildlife photography comparison between full frame and m43 and find full frame doesn’t always give you an obvious advantage but nobody wants to talk about it because they want to help these full frame manufacturers to keep selling their heavy and expensive lenses when most people don’t really need it and achieve a similar result.
They’re also paid and flown to exotic places to “test” the Sony equipment. I swear 90% of photography channels on TH-cam are just Sony commercials now. It’s getting ridiculous. It’s also hilarious to see people talking about how tiny the A7whatever body is, that there’s no size advantage to micro4/3, etc… then they put a lens on it that’s 3x the size and weight of the body.🤦🏼♂️ Physics is a bitch.
And yet, good m4/3 lenses are still expensive and heavy (that's also why g9 and other cameras are very beefy but i'll agree that it gives a more balanced setup), and there is not a very large amount of choice, on ff you can take a sigma, pay the same price as a m4/3, sell it for 70% of the price 2 years later, and it would've cost you less than an olympus, that's just a fact.
@@Arcaged good micro4/3 lenses are not all expensive, and certainly not compared to optically equivalent FF lenses. Also which ones are “heavy”? Do you think your FF Sigmas are lighter? LOL, physics doesn’t work that way. And I don’t think you’ve checked eBay, but used micro4/3 gear isn’t losing value. Look I have nothing against FF, I own a Z6ii, but you’re just wrong on every count here.
@@Yodd I own both system and have been shooting them for the past 10 years. If I’m traveling and don’t need absolute image quality, I would take m43 all day any day. Full frame for portraiture is great but for everything else, it needs to much accessories to get good results when m43, you only need a camera and a lens to do most things.
M43 really shines at the longer focal lengths. And as you say, 95% of the time we are either in good light, or lighting scenes ourselves to make scenes correct. And I also agree that too shallow depth of field in wildlife specifically sucks. Too many tonehs and it looks like you have taken the bird to a photo studio because the background loses all context. (Ps I am watching this in my Toneh shirt haha) Edited to add: lenses have to be STUPIDLY sharp on m43 because the small sensor picks up everything. It’s why full frame lenses look awful on m43 unless you use a speed booster 🤓
I use a Sony A1 for landscapes, low light, and most indoor events. I shoot everything else with Olympus m43 bodies and lenses. I use the Olympus gear much more often than the Sony because of the weight and size advantage. I just enjoy shooting with the Olympus gear more.
I started MFT with the GH1 back in 2008. The14-140mm was the only easy to get at first, but slowly new lenses became available, the 20/1.7, 45 macro, 7-14/4, Voigtlander 25/0.95, and so the collection grew, but after the GH2 I wandered off into Canon, eventually Sony. But then, 13 months ago I sold up most of my Canon, bought a G9, went back to MFT lens collecting. I am loving my return. Love the Olympus 100-400 tele, loving the Oly 60 macro, loving the Sigma 1.4 trinity. Agree with you - MFT for the win.
Remember, most of the classic great films were filmed using an aperture of f/5.6 - 8. Which is easily achievable on m43 f2.8 - 4. And if they needed more separation, they used short-telephoto lenses
Totally agree, I use both systems and with the OM1 release I will now sell my Sony gear. Been waiting for the day I could do this and finally I’m convinced I can confidently go all out M43
@@richaneesh haven’t received the OM1 yet to totally make my mind up as I will compare one against the other. My gut feeling is it will be OM1 all the way
I can hand hold my Olympus for 2 seconds. So for me, the low light advantage does really not matter. I have used my Olympus gear for just about everything you can think of, and I have never missed the shot I wanted due to low light. The again I have never shot in cold dark cell's under a city. But if I did. I'd bring my flash. I'd like to see you get your hands on a 40-150 with a teleconverter. The 1.4 only gets it to 210mm but still has the field of view of 420mm. Sharpest lens I own. I think you'd love it. Glad to see someone else realizing what many of us have know for along time. M 4/3 gets a bad rap.
Sure the stabilizer works for a bit. Until it gets dark, and it gets dark pretty quick. Afterwards no ammount of low shutter speed help those horrible shadows.. Hopefully this is vastly improved with the om1. ✌️
LOL! So all this time I thought T-stops on cine lenses actually means toneh. Refreshing. But Tony would disagree, he loves toneh, he's addicted to it, he now needs double or triple dose all the time, it's best that you can't even tell where he is. And I believe you, Tony is an artist, because loves only one thing in focus at any one time.
THANK YOU for pointing out that not everything under the sun should only have 1% of the total frame in focus!!! The bokeh conversation is soooooo played out. Folks spending $3k for a portrait lens so everything is at f1.2 when every portrait we have ever seen in our younger years is f5.6-f8……. 🤷♂️ We can Control depth of field with focal Length, and physical distance between subject and background far easier than limiting ourselves to just a single aperture……..
You are the only one to blame for Toneh obsession! 😛 Recently I swapped my Sony a6500 for a Sony a7iii thinking it would be awesome. Sure there are some features that makes life easier, lenses are better, but for instagram and TH-cam, there really isn’t any difference. It is so much harder to work on a gimbal, it’s heavy as f*, it is so much expensive. I also have regrets! Oh the money spent! 😭
I’m glad you did the test yourself, so many TH-cam “professionals” don’t seem to understand this. The other misconception is that bigger pixels are better for low light & noise etc. Again, it’s the same surface area whether it’s split into multiple pixels or 1 bigger pixel, its going to be the same. And the noise is less overall but more pronounced, making it less pleasing. Bigger sensor and more pixels is always better. Only drawback is you need a shit load of processing power to process all that information for video, autofocus etc.
So you are saying the dead space on a pixel split into 4 pixels is the same. I find that difficult to believe as 100% of the pixel area is surely not actually absorbing useful light and creating more dead space subdividing the pixel each with its own surrounding dead space is likely to decrease light plus each with their own circuit generating noise. Can you specify exactly how you reach this conclusion of no difference? Pixel chasing with compacts was obviously pure marketing in compacts trashing performance but looking good on the box at the point of sale and I am yet to be convinced this has changed one iota and not just shifted up market in what little is left of the industry, after their continual bad marketing overriding engineering decisions.
@@michaeld5888I think A74 and A1prive it wrong. Even Venice and Burano proved dead space between pixel theory wrong. Low light ability has nothing to do with pixel size. It has everything to do with sensor technology and processing.
@@DonVetto-vx9ddIf it was all about pixel size, the new 60MP full frames would be as noisy as 20MP M43, because the pixels are the same size in both. Still, larger pixels have a higher signal, because they collect more photons, so S/N starts off better, but signal processing is very sophisticated today so it's not as huge an advantage.
Great comparison of full frame to Micro 4/3rd's. In good light , no reason not to use the advantages of micro 4/3rd's weight and size advantage. Loving the new Olympus OM-1-it rocks!
I love your points on major motion pictures. Those movies never have a hyper shallow DOF. It's a rare scene that calls for blurry backgrounds. We are all obsessed with f/1.2 lenses and think anything else is inferior. Thanks for having this conversation.
That is actually a part of the video I completely disagreed with. Here's a video of famous movie quotes: th-cam.com/video/QUjxsuGwTA8/w-d-xo.html Watch and only focus (pun intended) on the background, don't pay attention to the actual quotes or the foreground. I would say in about one third of the clips there is no real background, in about one third the background is sharp (there is this clip halfway through of Forrest Gump which must have been shot at F/20 or something), but about one third has blurry backgrounds, and in many cases like Toneh like blurryness).
@@sanderbos I totally hear you and love blurry backgrounds myself (Sony a7iii shooter). I'd argue that those lenses aren't f/1.2 lenses that's for sure. Blurry BGs are a tool to use for story telling, subject isolation, and on and on. It's not the end-all-be-all most important part of a lens. Hey, we live in a glorious time of having so many amazing cameras and lenses at our disposal. We just need more stories 😉
Shallow DOF without a real reason for using it is completely overrated and most movies that rely on that are indie ones that have to hide the background because of low budget. With that said advantage of large format for movies is the ability of using higher focal lengths closer to the subject. For example with Joker they specifically said the ability to shoot higher focal lengths indoors close was a big reason for shooting it with an ARRI 65(larger than full frame). The ability to have a 50mm lens and have a wide FOV is pretty nice. And when going to an extreme like IMAX then it's again giving the ability to use a 80mm lens with a 39mm fov is incredible. Thats why IMAX has such a different look being closer to real life because it removes the distrotions from lower focal lengths with insanely high fidelity.
Exposure is the same on FF and M43 for a given F-stop (give or take for T-stop variance), but your effective depth of field when creating a comparable composition on M43 is twice as wide due to the 2.0 crop factor of the sensor. So when people say "you need to double your F-stop on M43 to get the FF equivalent", they're half right-- but not for the reason they probably think. Cropping your sensor has the effect of zooming in on your subject. Due to the 2x crop factor, a 50mm lens on M43 is _compositionally_ equivalent to a 100mm lens on FF. You primarily have two ways to achieve the same composition as on FF: Decrease focal length, or increase the distance to your subject. Both will widen your depth of field. The only parameter left to shrink your DoF at that point would be to widen your aperture. (This is why people say you need to treat M43 lenses as having half the aperture value as a comparable FF lens, even though the aperture isn't what's responsible for the widening of the focal plane.) Because widening aperture makes your image brighter, however, you'd need to reduce ISO or increase shutter speed to compensate. If you're already as low/fast as you can go, then an ND is your only hope. If you don't have one, you're out of luck. Conversely, if you were already shooting wide open in the first place, then your only hope is to buy a lens with a wider aperture. If that doesn't exist, you're out of luck. There are tools like focal reducers, teleconverters, etc. that make this a bit more complicated, but it all eventually boils down to balancing a few parameters to get a given composition.
No it's not! It's DEAD! Didn't you get the memo from years ago? Buy a Full Frame just because.. it's FULL. Why don't you want the FULL picture? I kid. Only use M43rds and use speed boosters for the 5% of the time I want stupidly shallow DOF.
I found a Sony 55-210 OSS lens for $100 brand new, and so I bought it, even though every review I had ever seen completely trashed it, and it's one of my favorite lenses. Also, people compare the sharpness of lenses all the time, but then they go out and spend $85 on a vintage Russian lens that many Hollywood films use. It's all subjective, as people often say, sometimes photographers want what they want, not what they need. :-)
Coming from full frame I didn't have huge expectations for the 75-300 but it presently surprised me in every way. Somehow M43 lenses sure nailed the quality.
I did my own test last night on my A7iv vs my G9. Freaks will stone me because they wouldn't believe that the G9 looks as good or better. The G9 is the best handling camera ever. It is what it is peeps. Find what works for you and be happy.
@@Yupthereitism Yes, just yes. G9 looks fantastic, just like the Sony looks fantastic. Only a psychopath blows images up to the pixel level and obsesses about the image quality at that level. Its seriously a sign of obsession and mental illness.
"M43, it's so small, it makes it fun to bring with you everywhere you go." < nailed it. I bought in with the GF1 and first gen 14-140 about 12 years ago when there wasn't anything else in the ball park of M43 and took it everywhere all around the world and shot 45k 12MP photos with the thing. Now my goto camera to just grab is either my GM1 or GM5 with the new-gen version of the same lens, or the 14-42 PZ if I want smaller or the oly 45 or leica 15 or whatever if I want brighter for darker. Only pick up the GX9 when the photo really matters and only pick up the GH5 for photos when it's super telephoto and dark as the IBIS is better and the low light better too. GH6 on the list when the price drops a bit, I think. Some nice stuff in there and the background focus shimmer is basically invisible because it's on/off every frame, ie, 50% frames in focussed in and 50% focussed out - so it just looks like the average of those when you watch it.
I switched to Panasonic m4/3 years ago purely for the reason of having smaller/lighter bag to carry around with no appreciable degradation in image quality.
For wildlife (amateur or semi pro) that does not make much difference in photo quality if light is good (but it's so much lighter) I love my Panasonic 100-300 II OIS.
@@JoATTech Late reply sorry lol. Also the fact that you can hold it handheld and walk around looking for birds is the biggest reason for me. I shoot birds around the river near my house, and sometimes i come across other birders lugging a ff camera with a huge lens on a tripod often staying at one spot for a long period of time waiting for birds to come near while i'm already far ahead shooting other birds.
The AS3 is a strange beast, each picture profile have two different base ISO and anything outside of base ISO looks really noisy. So in a sense it works more like a cinema camera.
You're right about "old men". My Z6ii with 24-200, while very capable, sits on the shelf. It's just not fun. FF is good for big prints, big crops and impressing DP Review readers. Not much else. An 800mm equivalent is going to test your hand holding skills to the limit. Not just stabe, but target acquisition. My RX10 IV was 600 mm equiv and that was tough enough. Like you, I wish I'd not sold it, but MF wasn't possible and AF was inconsistent. A bad combo. Congrats on following that hawk through the trees. Excellent! LIke the owl, which was beyond.
@Peter, have you tried using some old Nikkor manual lenses on your Z6ii? I have a bunch of Nikkor AIS lenses from my film days, and the FTZ(ii) adapter. It brings a bit of the fun back to it. With the Z6ii big beautiful EVF I don’t have any trouble focusing, even with my poor eyesight. But yeah, if I had to pick one system: easily micro4/3.
@@joeltunnah I have, Joel. My 55mm macro performs well with this body. The camera also performs well, in general, especially with the 24-200. As a Nikon DSLR user since the D70, I think I'm just done. My current fun cameras are my Samsung phone, which is amazing and always available, and a pair of DJI Osmo Action cameras.
It pisses me off that if i want little to no bg blur on my a7s3 I have to switch to manual focus. Anything over f/8 & it starts pulsing & breathing like crazy. The ZV-1 or a Cell Phone can achieve that look no problem.
@@Yupthereitism No, there is the same amount of light per area as FF gets four times the light of MFT for equivilent settings BUT for FOUR TIMES the area to expose. And the difference of DoF is due to the imaging scale (crop factor). As Ken Wheeler pointed it out several times: on an exposure meter there is no setting for film or sensor size!
I know this is a 2 year old video but I am gonna comment anyway. I just got my first camera a few weeks ago and I am very happy with it. its ten years old, cheap. its an Olympus M4/3 I think it takes good pictures. Serious photographers with NatGeo camera gear probably think its crap, but I have mine, they have theirs.
Awesome video. Agree that there’s too much of a fascination with bokeh, and that it is often used as a replacement for actual compositional or cinematic quality.
THANK you for this. Everyone has bought into the FF system because of this perceived perception of "Cinematic" meaning blurry AF background and dungeon level low light performance. There are more advantages than disadvantages to MFT, especially with the release of the GH6. The pixel to pixel option on the GH6 means you can buy what can effectively be an 80-450 f2.8 lens for $1500 with the Olympus 40-150 Pro
being a canon, Sony, Panasonic and Olympus user, you just just get it. If go outside in day ligh m43 are the Right ones. Another thing I do agree. Even the cheaper m43 lenses are very sharp, much more than cheap canon’s.
Let's be honest - the main difference between M4/3 and FF is not the weight anymore, but the size. The size actually makes so much difference that you can put in your photo backpack like 8 lenses for M4/3, while you'd be able to get only 4 equivalent lenses of FF.
I love pancake lenses, they're small and versatile, even on fullframe mount. But I have to remind myself if I want to rent a telephoto lens someday. I'm a small size human, not gonna do it on the fullframe.
An F4 is an F4 in light gathering, it doesn't matter if it's micro four thirds or full frame. I've tested this myself and most professionals say the same thing. The equivalency people who spam everywhere denigrating smaller sensors are wrong, it only effects shallow depth of field not light gathering of a lens. It's one of the huge advantages of M43 is that you can have small lenses with fast light gathering apertures (1.7 lenses that weigh only 140 grams). You only lose out on excessive bokeh if that's your thing.
You can't cheat physics. Bigger lenses do of course gather more light and therefore potentially offer better image quality. Why would anyone still use medium format for landscape or architecture if they could just use a smartphone with similar image resolution instead? Just think about it for a bit.
when you get seriously close to a raptor you start questioning whether or not it will let you keep your eyes. I once stumbled across a couple of golden eagles banging, like 6 or 7 feet away from me. it was majestic. I kept my eyes.
The 75-300 its really good for the price and the cost/ratio. But my personal preference for wild life is the 50-200 swd 2.8-3.5 it's heavier 1,1kg aprox. But the quality is stunning, and you can add the ec14 or even the ec20. And is an absolutely bargain for amateurs like me. I love your videos, keep on this good vibes.
There's also the dynamic range and color/tonal depth advantage of full frame. Which adds up to a "look" (An "openness"? An "analogness"? A "clarity"? A "realness"?) that smaller sensors can't replicate.
M43 keeps on showing up tough! I'm considering the OM-1 over the rumored X-H2.. I won't be able to afford either one til summer, so they'll both be available to try before I buy. I have an OG E-M5 that still works, from 2012, and I have a pair of X-H1s, so I'm familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of each format. Still though, the new Olympus looks enticing since I don't print 40x60" as a matter of course. Great video, you're an excellent wildlife shooter.
@@temujen Actually leaning towards OM1. They are both PASM flavor, but I really like the twin top dial Olympus way versus the wheels of others. Loving the Fujifilm colors, but if I'm gonna pay big for PASM then I might as well get smaller and lighter.
@@Bolton115 Awesome - I just got the OM-1 myself, and this is my first “real” camera so I’m really loving everything it can do. The size/weight, IBIS and autofocus were all the key factors that led me to the OM-1.
@@Bolton115 Haven’t had the opportunity to film/shoot low-light yet to be honest. Just been taking pics and video of the family out and about since it’s summer, and we’ve been traveling.
Exactly. It's about lenses. And m43 lets you get more of a lens for your budget. Once you really dig into m4/3 with lenses after burning cash on FF glass, you really appreciate it.
@@SirMo right now I’m digging not only in sharpness and full blurry bg but how lens creates image, does it brings that 3D look to picture. I believe laowa looks somewhat like portrait iPhone background blur (same as rokinon).
Very sensible comparison. I think most wildlife is shot on S35 sensors, so somewhere between m4/3 and full frame. Also, snce you won't use a tripod, have you considered a shoulder rig for your wildlife stuff?
GH6... I never sell my old cameras or lens. This old man switched to shave off tons of weight and found the image/video quality was just as good or better.
I haven't read the comments, but I have the Oly m43 1.4x and 2x teleconverters and they are great. However, they won't work on the Oly 75-300mm lens. You need the pro lenses, the 40-150 f/2.8 or the 300mm f/4 pro. The 2x works great on both of the pro lenses. The 40-150mm pro with 2x teleconverter beats my 75-300mm lens with both at 300mm. I like the 2x better than the 1.4x if there is enough light. You will often see people claim for other brands that the 1.4x teleconverter is good, but the 2x not so much. Olympus got this right. Their 2x teleconverter is killer!!! I've also tested my 75-300mm in comparison with the 300mm f/4 pro...and the 300mm pro wins and not by a little!!! However, I also have the Sony 200-600mm lens...and that beats the Olympus 300 f/4 pro, but not by much. In a way, it's not a totally fair comparison. Yes, the 300mm lens is called a 600 equivalent because of the FOV being the same. However, it's still a 300mm lens. The Sony is a zoom, but goes to 600mm. More light on the image means better image quality if the glass is even close. Shoot the same subject at 300mm with both lenses and yes, the Olympus will win with ease as you now have to blow up the Sony image to match the Oly image in size. So, take the Sony 100-400mm and the Sony 1.4x teleconverter and compare to the 75-300mm and I expect the Sony to win...unless you got a crappy, worse than average Sony lens vs a better than average Oly 75-300mm lens. Lens variation is real. They all leave the factory meeting only a minimum standard.
Micro 4/3 make for some great budget, portable wildlife photography. Full frame is obviously better, but I still prefer micro 4/3 most of the time because of the ease of focus and portability.
In my humble experience, m4/3 only fails me if I need to stop motion in low light - I’m still using the ol Em1ii though - might be better with the newer cameras. Besides that I’ve loved using my Em1ii and 7-14, 12-40, 40-150 f2.8s.
What kind of motion do you want to stop? I'm casually shooting street at night with iso 1600-3200 and f2.8 and it works just fine for people walking or running
Definitely for video and when you're shooting in good light and low shutter speeds the full frame image quality advantage is much less noticeable, especially on a camera like the a7S III where it has a heavy AA filter and 4k is not downsampled at all.
Olympus has suffered by its complete disregard for marketing. It is up to people like you to say "Hey whats going on here?". A 20mp M4/3 sensor is half the size of a FF 40mp sensor. The 300f4 pro is killer sharp.. so when a bird appears taking up 1/4 the frame, it would at worst, be equal to the FF lenses at 4 times the price. The only real use for FF is for folks not managing in getting a bird in flight in the center of the frame. Yet when you have the better reach, and rapid shooting.. is that worth spending three times as much? You hit all the major points here... perhaps now that Olympus is now OM ... they might change the one issue that held them back. FF hasn't caught up.. its still 5 grand for a "flagship". Panasonic and Olympus.. have advantages: They are useful, worth the money and have great glass for a lot less money. And its as you say "fun".
The problem with the M43 is that you can't crop, you have to get a good frame in the shot. On the other hand, in FF you have much more flexibility to do reframing without the loss of quality that doing the same in M43 would imply. It is the only against that I see the M43 for photography.
Liked your video and examples shown. Amazed that my Olympus OMD Em5 (maybe original version) is as good as it is in comparison to APS C. I have the Panasonic 4/3 100-300 zoom and it handles nicely on the Oly with the IBIS.
I've made the same conclusions as you. And I've went from APS-C to full frame with all the bells and whistles that I did't wan't to carry with me. After a year not taking that many photos because not carrying the weight all the time with me I went back to APS-C but this time mirrorless. I think with APS-C or M4/3 you get the full benefit of the mirrorless weight loss. I have Nikon Z50 with the 16-50mm and 50-250mm and while the body isn't or at least wasn't necessarily the best possible for the money, those lenses are. Super compact and lightweight and the sharpness amazed me. That combo by the way is only about one kilogram and fits to a fanny pack. Z50 itself is also small and lightweight (wheighs less than many m4/3) but with really good grip. I'd say it's been the most enjoyable camera for my use.
I'm looking forward to your real world view (not review) of the GH6 when you are able. i have been wrestling with the FF vs. MFT thing for a while now but still feel MFT (currently G9) is where I'm likely to stay. As you mentioned, great lenses, more reasonable pricing and more manageable size/weight. Plus the build quality of my Lumix camera still amazes me.
Former photographer here...(Don't worry though, I've since given up using flash in my transition to filmmaking, etc.) I've tested a lot of 2x teleconverters and a couple 1.4x teleconverters (with Canon 70-200 2.8 L, with Canon mount Canon version and Tamron SP teleconverters) and I would agree that the 1.4x is a LOT better optically, and only reduces the light input by 1 stop (whereas the 2x teleconverters have been a LOT worse optically and it reduces the light input by 2 stops).
Shallow focus is bloody irritating - noticed some egregious blurry backgrounds/characters in the Netflix adaptation of Lost in Space. I get filmmakers/DPs use focus as a creative tool to direct the eye, but blurring the bejeesus out of everything apart from the currently speaking character's face just makes it seem like a weird puppet show, talking heads against an impressionistic background. Where are they, what are the background people doing, all interesting info that can inform the story and the worldbuilding. Turned into a bit of a rant, tl;dr super shallow focus sucks, long live MFT, thanks for your videos dude
Aspect ratio plays a part here. The Em1 Mkii/Mkiii has 300 pixels per millimeter. Calculate that for APS-C and see what the number is. 3:2 aspect ratio has pixels on the sides of the sensor because it's a wider format. So depending what you are shooting, M43 can win.
so wildlife video is different bc shutter speeds of 1/100 or 1/200 (slomo) are fine. then mft is fine. for bird photography, high shutter is better so iso punishes mft
I compared my APSC to full frame for wildlife and nothing replaces the extra reach, especially with lenses designed for the smaller sensor. I get 525mm out of a 350mm and the full frame equivalent set up weighs the same as a cathedral full of anvils. No thanks!
ooooof this is making a really good argument for my desire to switch back to m4/3.... i used panasonic lumix g85 for a WHILE then splurged on the a7s3 bc i love the look of full frame.... but the gh6 is almost here and i do like m4/3 bc i have small hands and i like the lightweightedness of it. also the direction you turn a zoom lens is reversed on the sigma art lens for sony so m4/3 just feels more intuitive..... aaahhhh help me camera people!!!
I'm an old man (61) and I have MFT, APS-C, and FF cameras. Yes, I will only take my MFT when I take a long walk. I get the results I want if I'm carrying my old G85, my D7200, or my Z5. You're right that the real difference is buying good lenses.
The reasoning you conduct, clearly indicate that apsc will be the better go-to… larger than m43, while not compromising on the option of getting actually wide angle photos… on apsc Fuji, the widest lens is the 8-16 mm, giving you 12 mm equivalent at the widest. On a m43 withers crop factor is so large, that getting a wide angle lens for a wide angle aspect is nearly impossible.
Re teleconverters, I would personally not use a 2x extender on any system. Too much loss of image quality on top of two stops of light loss. 1.4x is my max. Just get closer.
I switched from Sony A7Rii to Panasonic G9, made a video on it. It was bad, one day I'll make awesome videos like you. Talking to a camera is hard, not saying the same word like 50 times in the video would be nice or not saying ah everyother word. I do mostly wildlife photos and yeah I prefer the G9 with the Pan 100-300 over the A7rii with the Sigma 100-400. Real world, the G9 with the 100-300 reaches further and is much easier to operate and carry. Image quality isn't noticeably different on any platform I share my work on.
BTW the footage of the Hawk is great. It's better than no shot and when you get that close to such a fine creature the worry about specs kind of becomes less important than the experience of "being there"!
Light transmission also is a factors that plays a lot of part here on brightness: only with Cinema lenses you have an accurate equivalence of light transmission to the sensor, while F/ is a number that is theoretical but does not accounts for glass physics. Even at the same F stop number, a fixed lens can usually be almost 1, 1.5 stop brighter then a complex zoom lens if you convert F/ to T. Even ISO sometime is not as "consistent" as it seems, with, for example, Fuji usually being 1 stop darker at the same ISo as other cameras.
Fuji's ISO protects the highlights, but I'm consistently amazed at the multiple stops of shadow detail I can pull out of even their JPEGs, let alone the RAWs. I don't know. I've literally used the Fuji as a light meter to shoot film on a vintage camera with a busted meter, and the film was correctly exposed. So whatever they're doing isn't that far out of standards.
I own 4 GH5 cameras, they get excellent shots zoomed for photo on a lumix 14-140mm kit lens (28-280mm equivalent), I use a lumix 14mm pancake prime (28mm equivalent) for most video. As cheap as those are used they are excellent!
Now that you're into wildlife I'd be happy if you tested Sigma 150-600 dg dn and Tamron 150-500 for the Sony. Gonna help me make a decision because can't spend 2000 $ on sony 200-600 😁
Hey the great vegetables polish:) just kidding:) loving your work! Please could you help and confirm which camera setup you are using? Are you using Fuji or Sony? Do you recommend Fuji x-t4 with 16mm 1.4 or Fuji x-tx4 with 50mm 1.0? Or is the Sony a73 with 50mm 1.2 better for video? I already have Sony a73 and canon 5dmark 4. Love the Fuji autofocus when you move in up and down in your videos :)
Just admit already, you miss that G9 magic. The oly is good but it just doesn't have that same G9 video magic. Bang for the buck I really don't know how or who beats it. Cheers 🍻.
You make for a good laugh but you speak many truths. I like your practical side-by-sides to help dispel any myths or prove a point. I always say that a plumber would not use a jeweler's screwdriver to fix a pipe, and a jeweler would not use a monkey wrench to fix a watch. The same principle applies in photography. Full frame and APSC are good "all around" formats, but M43 has a distinct advantage for wildlife, nature and birds in decent light, or when a more compact/lighter arrangement for travel is called for. There is no format that will be great for all applications under any conditions. Studio and product photography - MEDIUM FORMAT but M43 could have an application there too. Larger sensors do not allow more light in - it's not a solar cell! Larger sensors allow for larger photocell sites so less amplification is needed to capture the same scene. It's the high degree of amplification that introduces noise - when you amply a signal you also amplify noise and the S/N ratio goes down at the lower exposure values - it's that simple. Now, some cameras handle the noise better or apply better anti-noise algos, but overall larger eyeballs means better low light performance.
This is some funny, but really enlightening shit here. I sold all of my Canon FF and APSC, also L glass, in 2017. Bought Olympus MFT bodies and pro lenses, and have never looked back, and with no regrets. I've seen all of the MFT DOF and low light discussions on (seems like) a thousand TH-cam videos and other forums. I don't care, my Oly equipment just works and makes me money, too, and doesn't break my back or the bank. If I really feel the need for some extra Toneh, I'll just back off with a longer lens attached. If a low-light file has too much noise (and most don't), I have DxO Photolab Deep Prime to fix it. So I have no issue using computational photography to get the shot right. I have two Oly EM1-IIs and two EM-5IIs, and they all do a beautiful job for me, and more importantly, my customers. The EM1-III didn't seem like enough of an upgrade for me, but I'll be getting an OM-1 for sure. Keep up the good work, Casey, I don't ever feel like my time is wasted watching your reviews.
Interesting video as always, Just as I'm thinking of parting ways with micro 4/3. Nice tracking on the hawk gave it some context with the trees in the foreground be interesting to throw some post image stabilization on it to see what happens to the foreground trees, if not already done.
Ahh, if only I could afford that Olympus 150-400mm f/4.5 zoom, I'm sure I could get a date with Brooke Bartleson. But I didn't know my cheap-ass 75-300mm zoom was so good compared to that expensive Sony lens!
No man, nooo go buy the canon r6 and it will burn in your hands with your hands when recording, but it s a cool camera. Every time i look at canon specs from now on i kinda divide them by 2 to make sure
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, your camera will be so light that when a hawk grabs it off your shoulder strap and flies away with it, you'll be slightly less devastated due to the lower cost.
Panasonic GH6 bhpho.to/3LI6cc7
Olympus OM-1 amzn.to/3gW4dCT or bhpho.to/3H2adVf
Olympus EM1 III amzn.to/3rxEXJn or bhpho.to/3dp7UPL
Olympus 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 amzn.to/3oILuix or bhpho.to/3u2pfr5
Sony A7S III bhpho.to/3yeUW0q
Sony 100-400mm GM f4.5-5.6 amzn.to/3ISX6a7 or bhpho.to/3IQRQ6Y
Sony 2x Teleconverter amzn.to/3h9qm0F or bhpho.to/3hhMrda
Zeiss Batis 25mm f2 amzn.to/3fz3iHF or bhpho.to/3GnpNuq or used! bhpho.to/3H1UYeQ
Fuji XT4 amzn.to/31wORkb or bhpho.to/3mXJUs0
Fuji 70-300mm bhpho.to/3qoRhen
All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com/shop/vegetablepolice
You should do a Panasonic GH6 vs. OM System OM-1 when you get your hand on both cameras!
Don’t give up on Olympus!!! We need you
I’m so glad that you are probably one of the very few TH-camrs willing to do side by side wildlife photography comparison between full frame and m43 and find full frame doesn’t always give you an obvious advantage but nobody wants to talk about it because they want to help these full frame manufacturers to keep selling their heavy and expensive lenses when most people don’t really need it and achieve a similar result.
They’re also paid and flown to exotic places to “test” the Sony equipment. I swear 90% of photography channels on TH-cam are just Sony commercials now. It’s getting ridiculous.
It’s also hilarious to see people talking about how tiny the A7whatever body is, that there’s no size advantage to micro4/3, etc… then they put a lens on it that’s 3x the size and weight of the body.🤦🏼♂️
Physics is a bitch.
And yet, good m4/3 lenses are still expensive and heavy (that's also why g9 and other cameras are very beefy but i'll agree that it gives a more balanced setup), and there is not a very large amount of choice, on ff you can take a sigma, pay the same price as a m4/3, sell it for 70% of the price 2 years later, and it would've cost you less than an olympus, that's just a fact.
@@Arcaged good micro4/3 lenses are not all expensive, and certainly not compared to optically equivalent FF lenses. Also which ones are “heavy”? Do you think your FF Sigmas are lighter? LOL, physics doesn’t work that way.
And I don’t think you’ve checked eBay, but used micro4/3 gear isn’t losing value.
Look I have nothing against FF, I own a Z6ii, but you’re just wrong on every count here.
He is not testing photography tho. M43 is still worse than fullframe in most cases. It depends on the camera and what you are using it for.
@@Yodd I own both system and have been shooting them for the past 10 years. If I’m traveling and don’t need absolute image quality, I would take m43 all day any day. Full frame for portraiture is great but for everything else, it needs to much accessories to get good results when m43, you only need a camera and a lens to do most things.
M43 really shines at the longer focal lengths. And as you say, 95% of the time we are either in good light, or lighting scenes ourselves to make scenes correct.
And I also agree that too shallow depth of field in wildlife specifically sucks. Too many tonehs and it looks like you have taken the bird to a photo studio because the background loses all context.
(Ps I am watching this in my Toneh shirt haha)
Edited to add: lenses have to be STUPIDLY sharp on m43 because the small sensor picks up everything. It’s why full frame lenses look awful on m43 unless you use a speed booster 🤓
Nice to see you here!’
You rock Emily! Nice to see you back. Can't wait for more of your content.
Interesting in that you were able to snag a GH6 for review but Kasey could not.
it's the other way around for nature photography (e.g. birds): 95% of the time, you are in suboptimal light, with light out of your own control.
well, stick say the 15mm f1.7 on and just take family photos or whatever. Camera in one hand, champagne in the other. M43 is the best.
I use a Sony A1 for landscapes, low light, and most indoor events. I shoot everything else with Olympus m43 bodies and lenses. I use the Olympus gear much more often than the Sony because of the weight and size advantage. I just enjoy shooting with the Olympus gear more.
Same
I just wish the prices would come down. Still rocking my m5mkii
I started MFT with the GH1 back in 2008. The14-140mm was the only easy to get at first, but slowly new lenses became available, the 20/1.7, 45 macro, 7-14/4, Voigtlander 25/0.95, and so the collection grew, but after the GH2 I wandered off into Canon, eventually Sony. But then, 13 months ago I sold up most of my Canon, bought a G9, went back to MFT lens collecting. I am loving my return. Love the Olympus 100-400 tele, loving the Oly 60 macro, loving the Sigma 1.4 trinity. Agree with you - MFT for the win.
i love my sony a7siii, i can't ask for more. it's GOAT.
The G9 is a joy to use, as a hybrid shooter, but mostly stills.
@@joeltunnah Can't agree more. The G9 is the most delightful camera I have ever used. It just feels right in the hand.
Agree, sold all my FF gear and super happy with my G9. And the small tiny light lenses... My bag is light, sometimes I forget that I have stuff in it.
Do you use panasonic g9 for bird photography? what do you think about this use? do you prefer oly 100-400 or panaleica 100-400?
Remember, most of the classic great films were filmed using an aperture of f/5.6 - 8. Which is easily achievable on m43 f2.8 - 4. And if they needed more separation, they used short-telephoto lenses
Totally agree, I use both systems and with the OM1 release I will now sell my Sony gear. Been waiting for the day I could do this and finally I’m convinced I can confidently go all out M43
Based
You sold already?
@@richaneesh haven’t received the OM1 yet to totally make my mind up as I will compare one against the other. My gut feeling is it will be OM1 all the way
I can hand hold my Olympus for 2 seconds. So for me, the low light advantage does really not matter. I have used my Olympus gear for just about everything you can think of, and I have never missed the shot I wanted due to low light. The again I have never shot in cold dark cell's under a city. But if I did. I'd bring my flash. I'd like to see you get your hands on a 40-150 with a teleconverter. The 1.4 only gets it to 210mm but still has the field of view of 420mm. Sharpest lens I own. I think you'd love it. Glad to see someone else realizing what many of us have know for along time. M 4/3 gets a bad rap.
What if you have too shoot fast moving subjects on a super cloudy day?
Sure the stabilizer works for a bit. Until it gets dark, and it gets dark pretty quick. Afterwards no ammount of low shutter speed help those horrible shadows.. Hopefully this is vastly improved with the om1. ✌️
"is this good content?" - Yes, yes it is! And that's getting rarer (or harder to find) on TH-cam by the day ;)
LOL! So all this time I thought T-stops on cine lenses actually means toneh. Refreshing. But Tony would disagree, he loves toneh, he's addicted to it, he now needs double or triple dose all the time, it's best that you can't even tell where he is. And I believe you, Tony is an artist, because loves only one thing in focus at any one time.
Tony is a mimbo shill.
THANK YOU for pointing out that not everything under the sun should only have 1% of the total frame in focus!!! The bokeh conversation is soooooo played out.
Folks spending $3k for a portrait lens so everything is at f1.2 when every portrait we have ever seen in our younger years is f5.6-f8……. 🤷♂️
We can Control depth of field with focal
Length, and physical distance between subject and background far easier than limiting ourselves to just a single aperture……..
You are the only one to blame for Toneh obsession! 😛
Recently I swapped my Sony a6500 for a Sony a7iii thinking it would be awesome. Sure there are some features that makes life easier, lenses are better, but for instagram and TH-cam, there really isn’t any difference.
It is so much harder to work on a gimbal, it’s heavy as f*, it is so much expensive. I also have regrets!
Oh the money spent! 😭
Get a 200-600 on that A7III and it will give you much better results than the A6500 with 70-350G
I’m glad you did the test yourself, so many TH-cam “professionals” don’t seem to understand this. The other misconception is that bigger pixels are better for low light & noise etc. Again, it’s the same surface area whether it’s split into multiple pixels or 1 bigger pixel, its going to be the same. And the noise is less overall but more pronounced, making it
less pleasing. Bigger sensor and more pixels is always better. Only drawback is you need a shit load of processing power to process all that information for video, autofocus etc.
Especially if your using the 5D IV.
So you are saying the dead space on a pixel split into 4 pixels is the same. I find that difficult to believe as 100% of the pixel area is surely not actually absorbing useful light and creating more dead space subdividing the pixel each with its own surrounding dead space is likely to decrease light plus each with their own circuit generating noise. Can you specify exactly how you reach this conclusion of no difference? Pixel chasing with compacts was obviously pure marketing in compacts trashing performance but looking good on the box at the point of sale and I am yet to be convinced this has changed one iota and not just shifted up market in what little is left of the industry, after their continual bad marketing overriding engineering decisions.
@@michaeld5888I think A74 and A1prive it wrong. Even Venice and Burano proved dead space between pixel theory wrong.
Low light ability has nothing to do with pixel size. It has everything to do with sensor technology and processing.
@@DonVetto-vx9ddIf it was all about pixel size, the new 60MP full frames would be as noisy as 20MP M43, because the pixels are the same size in both. Still, larger pixels have a higher signal, because they collect more photons, so S/N starts off better, but signal processing is very sophisticated today so it's not as huge an advantage.
Great comparison of full frame to Micro 4/3rd's. In good light , no reason not to use the advantages of micro 4/3rd's weight and size advantage. Loving the new Olympus OM-1-it rocks!
I love your points on major motion pictures. Those movies never have a hyper shallow DOF. It's a rare scene that calls for blurry backgrounds. We are all obsessed with f/1.2 lenses and think anything else is inferior. Thanks for having this conversation.
That is actually a part of the video I completely disagreed with. Here's a video of famous movie quotes:
th-cam.com/video/QUjxsuGwTA8/w-d-xo.html
Watch and only focus (pun intended) on the background, don't pay attention to the actual quotes or the foreground. I would say in about one third of the clips there is no real background, in about one third the background is sharp (there is this clip halfway through of Forrest Gump which must have been shot at F/20 or something), but about one third has blurry backgrounds, and in many cases like Toneh like blurryness).
@@sanderbos I totally hear you and love blurry backgrounds myself (Sony a7iii shooter). I'd argue that those lenses aren't f/1.2 lenses that's for sure. Blurry BGs are a tool to use for story telling, subject isolation, and on and on. It's not the end-all-be-all most important part of a lens. Hey, we live in a glorious time of having so many amazing cameras and lenses at our disposal. We just need more stories 😉
Shallow DOF without a real reason for using it is completely overrated and most movies that rely on that are indie ones that have to hide the background because of low budget. With that said advantage of large format for movies is the ability of using higher focal lengths closer to the subject. For example with Joker they specifically said the ability to shoot higher focal lengths indoors close was a big reason for shooting it with an ARRI 65(larger than full frame). The ability to have a 50mm lens and have a wide FOV is pretty nice. And when going to an extreme like IMAX then it's again giving the ability to use a 80mm lens with a 39mm fov is incredible. Thats why IMAX has such a different look being closer to real life because it removes the distrotions from lower focal lengths with insanely high fidelity.
@@vlcheish Great points!!! Know your gear and create!!!!
@Sander Bos Doesn't change how most of them are shot at f8. The blurring from most of them are from the use of short-telephoto lens
Exposure is the same on FF and M43 for a given F-stop (give or take for T-stop variance), but your effective depth of field when creating a comparable composition on M43 is twice as wide due to the 2.0 crop factor of the sensor. So when people say "you need to double your F-stop on M43 to get the FF equivalent", they're half right-- but not for the reason they probably think.
Cropping your sensor has the effect of zooming in on your subject. Due to the 2x crop factor, a 50mm lens on M43 is _compositionally_ equivalent to a 100mm lens on FF. You primarily have two ways to achieve the same composition as on FF: Decrease focal length, or increase the distance to your subject. Both will widen your depth of field. The only parameter left to shrink your DoF at that point would be to widen your aperture. (This is why people say you need to treat M43 lenses as having half the aperture value as a comparable FF lens, even though the aperture isn't what's responsible for the widening of the focal plane.) Because widening aperture makes your image brighter, however, you'd need to reduce ISO or increase shutter speed to compensate. If you're already as low/fast as you can go, then an ND is your only hope. If you don't have one, you're out of luck. Conversely, if you were already shooting wide open in the first place, then your only hope is to buy a lens with a wider aperture. If that doesn't exist, you're out of luck.
There are tools like focal reducers, teleconverters, etc. that make this a bit more complicated, but it all eventually boils down to balancing a few parameters to get a given composition.
I agree with you! M43 is perfect 99% of the time, and costs 1/3 of the price. M43 is the FUTURE!!!
No it's not! It's DEAD! Didn't you get the memo from years ago? Buy a Full Frame just because.. it's FULL. Why don't you want the FULL picture?
I kid. Only use M43rds and use speed boosters for the 5% of the time I want stupidly shallow DOF.
@@overnightdelivery what about lenses? I mean wide ones?
I found a Sony 55-210 OSS lens for $100 brand new, and so I bought it, even though every review I had ever seen completely trashed it, and it's one of my favorite lenses. Also, people compare the sharpness of lenses all the time, but then they go out and spend $85 on a vintage Russian lens that many Hollywood films use. It's all subjective, as people often say, sometimes photographers want what they want, not what they need. :-)
Coming from full frame I didn't have huge expectations for the 75-300 but it presently surprised me in every way. Somehow M43 lenses sure nailed the quality.
Tengo una EM1 Mark III y uso el Lumix 100-300, mayor calidad que el m.zuiko 75-300
I did my own test last night on my A7iv vs my G9. Freaks will stone me because they wouldn't believe that the G9 looks as good or better. The G9 is the best handling camera ever. It is what it is peeps. Find what works for you and be happy.
No lol, just no
@@Yupthereitism Yes, just yes. G9 looks fantastic, just like the Sony looks fantastic. Only a psychopath blows images up to the pixel level and obsesses about the image quality at that level. Its seriously a sign of obsession and mental illness.
Ive heard great things about the G9 even for 2022. I hope they release a successor to it though.
“The G9 is the best handling camera ever.”
Yes it is. No debate.
"M43, it's so small, it makes it fun to bring with you everywhere you go." < nailed it. I bought in with the GF1 and first gen 14-140 about 12 years ago when there wasn't anything else in the ball park of M43 and took it everywhere all around the world and shot 45k 12MP photos with the thing. Now my goto camera to just grab is either my GM1 or GM5 with the new-gen version of the same lens, or the 14-42 PZ if I want smaller or the oly 45 or leica 15 or whatever if I want brighter for darker. Only pick up the GX9 when the photo really matters and only pick up the GH5 for photos when it's super telephoto and dark as the IBIS is better and the low light better too. GH6 on the list when the price drops a bit, I think. Some nice stuff in there and the background focus shimmer is basically invisible because it's on/off every frame, ie, 50% frames in focussed in and 50% focussed out - so it just looks like the average of those when you watch it.
Best micro four thirds video in 10 years of watching screew tube
Good on you for listening to our comments and testing the T-stops equivalency. I follow this channel just because you're honest ^^
15:44 From there on out I could not contain my laughter, my goodness, the entertainment value from Kasey is too glorious.
OMG! The fact is that he is again with some love to give for M43 systems and he really find a point here less debated.
I switched to Panasonic m4/3 years ago purely for the reason of having smaller/lighter bag to carry around with no appreciable degradation in image quality.
For wildlife (amateur or semi pro) that does not make much difference in photo quality if light is good (but it's so much lighter) I love my Panasonic 100-300 II OIS.
@@JoATTech Late reply sorry lol. Also the fact that you can hold it handheld and walk around looking for birds is the biggest reason for me. I shoot birds around the river near my house, and sometimes i come across other birders lugging a ff camera with a huge lens on a tripod often staying at one spot for a long period of time waiting for birds to come near while i'm already far ahead shooting other birds.
The AS3 is a strange beast, each picture profile have two different base ISO and anything outside of base ISO looks really noisy. So in a sense it works more like a cinema camera.
Hurray. Take a bow sir. Finally, someone talking sense, and imparting truth.
You're right about "old men". My Z6ii with 24-200, while very capable, sits on the shelf. It's just not fun. FF is good for big prints, big crops and impressing DP Review readers. Not much else.
An 800mm equivalent is going to test your hand holding skills to the limit. Not just stabe, but target acquisition. My RX10 IV was 600 mm equiv and that was tough enough. Like you, I wish I'd not sold it, but MF wasn't possible and AF was inconsistent. A bad combo. Congrats on following that hawk through the trees. Excellent! LIke the owl, which was beyond.
That’s a straight up lie and you know it. There is absolutely no way to impress DP Review readers.
:)
@Peter, have you tried using some old Nikkor manual lenses on your Z6ii?
I have a bunch of Nikkor AIS lenses from my film days, and the FTZ(ii) adapter. It brings a bit of the fun back to it.
With the Z6ii big beautiful EVF I don’t have any trouble focusing, even with my poor eyesight.
But yeah, if I had to pick one system: easily micro4/3.
@@jooyoonchung3593 dpreview is one of the circles of hell.
@@joeltunnah I have, Joel. My 55mm macro performs well with this body. The camera also performs well, in general, especially with the 24-200. As a Nikon DSLR user since the D70, I think I'm just done. My current fun cameras are my Samsung phone, which is amazing and always available, and a pair of DJI Osmo Action cameras.
It pisses me off that if i want little to no bg blur on my a7s3 I have to switch to manual focus. Anything over f/8 & it starts pulsing & breathing like crazy. The ZV-1 or a Cell Phone can achieve that look no problem.
It’s the size of the sensor. The larger the sensor, the more light and more background blur
PDAF works around F3.5 to 6 the best, so if you get supet high, fails.
@@Yupthereitism No, there is the same amount of light per area as FF gets four times the light of MFT for equivilent settings BUT for FOUR TIMES the area to expose. And the difference of DoF is due to the imaging scale (crop factor). As Ken Wheeler pointed it out several times: on an exposure meter there is no setting for film or sensor size!
I know this is a 2 year old video but I am gonna comment anyway. I just got my first camera a few weeks ago and I am very happy with it. its ten years old, cheap. its an Olympus M4/3 I think it takes good pictures. Serious photographers with NatGeo camera gear probably think its crap, but I have mine, they have theirs.
Awesome video. Agree that there’s too much of a fascination with bokeh, and that it is often used as a replacement for actual compositional or cinematic quality.
THANK you for this. Everyone has bought into the FF system because of this perceived perception of "Cinematic" meaning blurry AF background and dungeon level low light performance. There are more advantages than disadvantages to MFT, especially with the release of the GH6. The pixel to pixel option on the GH6 means you can buy what can effectively be an 80-450 f2.8 lens for $1500 with the Olympus 40-150 Pro
being a canon, Sony, Panasonic and Olympus user, you just just get it. If go outside in day ligh m43 are the Right ones. Another thing I do agree. Even the cheaper m43 lenses are very sharp, much more than cheap canon’s.
Olympus and Panasonic make truly great lenses, and they’re actually affordable, and you don’t mind carrying them around all day.
I love that you don't take yourself too seriously. Makes your videos much more watchable than the usual camera vlogs.
Let's be honest - the main difference between M4/3 and FF is not the weight anymore, but the size. The size actually makes so much difference that you can put in your photo backpack like 8 lenses for M4/3, while you'd be able to get only 4 equivalent lenses of FF.
For example Sony 70 to 200 olympus 40 to 150 = 80 to 300
@@garybrown9719 that M.Zuiko is a literal pocket lens compared to Sony's 70-200 lmao
I love pancake lenses, they're small and versatile, even on fullframe mount. But I have to remind myself if I want to rent a telephoto lens someday. I'm a small size human, not gonna do it on the fullframe.
why would you need 8 lens??
@@borisnemet you wouldn't, but it was faster than writing what all you can put into that backpack instead of having it just full of camera gear
That eagle in the foreground going to the background becoming TONEH in the mirror, dude... ART
An F4 is an F4 in light gathering, it doesn't matter if it's micro four thirds or full frame. I've tested this myself and most professionals say the same thing. The equivalency people who spam everywhere denigrating smaller sensors are wrong, it only effects shallow depth of field not light gathering of a lens. It's one of the huge advantages of M43 is that you can have small lenses with fast light gathering apertures (1.7 lenses that weigh only 140 grams). You only lose out on excessive bokeh if that's your thing.
You can't cheat physics. Bigger lenses do of course gather more light and therefore potentially offer better image quality. Why would anyone still use medium format for landscape or architecture if they could just use a smartphone with similar image resolution instead? Just think about it for a bit.
Once you try M43 it's hard if not impossible to leave
I'm in, I'm in. I'm joining the MFT gang, just bought a crappy E-M5 and a soon a 100-400 Lumix or the 75-300 Oly
when you get seriously close to a raptor you start questioning whether or not it will let you keep your eyes. I once stumbled across a couple of golden eagles banging, like 6 or 7 feet away from me. it was majestic. I kept my eyes.
Excellent point Casey. You are the third person to point out the lower noise floor under ISO 12800 for Micro 4/3.
The 75-300 its really good for the price and the cost/ratio. But my personal preference for wild life is the 50-200 swd 2.8-3.5 it's heavier 1,1kg aprox. But the quality is stunning, and you can add the ec14 or even the ec20. And is an absolutely bargain for amateurs like me. I love your videos, keep on this good vibes.
There's also the dynamic range and color/tonal depth advantage of full frame. Which adds up to a "look" (An "openness"? An "analogness"? A "clarity"? A "realness"?) that smaller sensors can't replicate.
M43 keeps on showing up tough! I'm considering the OM-1 over the rumored X-H2.. I won't be able to afford either one til summer, so they'll both be available to try before I buy. I have an OG E-M5 that still works, from 2012, and I have a pair of X-H1s, so I'm familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of each format. Still though, the new Olympus looks enticing since I don't print 40x60" as a matter of course.
Great video, you're an excellent wildlife shooter.
Did you make a decision yet?
@@temujen Actually leaning towards OM1. They are both PASM flavor, but I really like the twin top dial Olympus way versus the wheels of others. Loving the Fujifilm colors, but if I'm gonna pay big for PASM then I might as well get smaller and lighter.
@@Bolton115 Awesome - I just got the OM-1 myself, and this is my first “real” camera so I’m really loving everything it can do. The size/weight, IBIS and autofocus were all the key factors that led me to the OM-1.
@@temujen Rad! Have you shot any concerts or other low light events?
@@Bolton115 Haven’t had the opportunity to film/shoot low-light yet to be honest. Just been taking pics and video of the family out and about since it’s summer, and we’ve been traveling.
Exactly. It's about lenses. And m43 lets you get more of a lens for your budget. Once you really dig into m4/3 with lenses after burning cash on FF glass, you really appreciate it.
Affordable wide that will create bg separation?
@@mazurindependentfilmmaking2713 Venus Laowa 10mm f/2
@@SirMo i’ll dig, ty. Smth like 15-17? Same laowa?
@@mazurindependentfilmmaking2713 Yes Laowa has those as well. They are considered sharp and pretty good for the money.
@@SirMo right now I’m digging not only in sharpness and full blurry bg but how lens creates image, does it brings that 3D look to picture.
I believe laowa looks somewhat like portrait iPhone background blur (same as rokinon).
Finally, you've seen the light, literally! 😁😉
Very sensible comparison. I think most wildlife is shot on S35 sensors, so somewhere between m4/3 and full frame. Also, snce you won't use a tripod, have you considered a shoulder rig for your wildlife stuff?
GH6... I never sell my old cameras or lens. This old man switched to shave off tons of weight and found the image/video quality was just as good or better.
Thanks, you really brighten my day. My wife shouts up the stairs, what are you laughing at.
I haven't read the comments, but I have the Oly m43 1.4x and 2x teleconverters and they are great. However, they won't work on the Oly 75-300mm lens. You need the pro lenses, the 40-150 f/2.8 or the 300mm f/4 pro. The 2x works great on both of the pro lenses. The 40-150mm pro with 2x teleconverter beats my 75-300mm lens with both at 300mm. I like the 2x better than the 1.4x if there is enough light. You will often see people claim for other brands that the 1.4x teleconverter is good, but the 2x not so much. Olympus got this right. Their 2x teleconverter is killer!!!
I've also tested my 75-300mm in comparison with the 300mm f/4 pro...and the 300mm pro wins and not by a little!!! However, I also have the Sony 200-600mm lens...and that beats the Olympus 300 f/4 pro, but not by much. In a way, it's not a totally fair comparison. Yes, the 300mm lens is called a 600 equivalent because of the FOV being the same. However, it's still a 300mm lens. The Sony is a zoom, but goes to 600mm. More light on the image means better image quality if the glass is even close. Shoot the same subject at 300mm with both lenses and yes, the Olympus will win with ease as you now have to blow up the Sony image to match the Oly image in size. So, take the Sony 100-400mm and the Sony 1.4x teleconverter and compare to the 75-300mm and I expect the Sony to win...unless you got a crappy, worse than average Sony lens vs a better than average Oly 75-300mm lens. Lens variation is real. They all leave the factory meeting only a minimum standard.
Micro 4/3 make for some great budget, portable wildlife photography. Full frame is obviously better, but I still prefer micro 4/3 most of the time because of the ease of focus and portability.
In my humble experience, m4/3 only fails me if I need to stop motion in low light - I’m still using the ol Em1ii though - might be better with the newer cameras. Besides that I’ve loved using my Em1ii and 7-14, 12-40, 40-150 f2.8s.
What kind of motion do you want to stop? I'm casually shooting street at night with iso 1600-3200 and f2.8 and it works just fine for people walking or running
I sold my G9 also opting for an OM1. In good light, the image quality is less obvious.
I’m loving this wildlife venture
Definitely for video and when you're shooting in good light and low shutter speeds the full frame image quality advantage is much less noticeable, especially on a camera like the a7S III where it has a heavy AA filter and 4k is not downsampled at all.
Olympus has suffered by its complete disregard for marketing. It is up to people like you to say "Hey whats going on here?". A 20mp M4/3 sensor is half the size of a FF 40mp sensor. The 300f4 pro is killer sharp.. so when a bird appears taking up 1/4 the frame, it would at worst, be equal to the FF lenses at 4 times the price. The only real use for FF is for folks not managing in getting a bird in flight in the center of the frame. Yet when you have the better reach, and rapid shooting.. is that worth spending three times as much? You hit all the major points here... perhaps now that Olympus is now OM ... they might change the one issue that held them back. FF hasn't caught up.. its still 5 grand for a "flagship". Panasonic and Olympus.. have advantages: They are useful, worth the money and have great glass for a lot less money. And its as you say "fun".
The problem with the M43 is that you can't crop, you have to get a good frame in the shot. On the other hand, in FF you have much more flexibility to do reframing without the loss of quality that doing the same in M43 would imply. It is the only against that I see the M43 for photography.
Liked your video and examples shown. Amazed that my Olympus OMD Em5 (maybe original version) is as good as it is in comparison to APS C. I have the Panasonic 4/3 100-300 zoom and it handles nicely on the Oly with the IBIS.
I also love the Canon EF 70 - 300mm IS Mark II on my Canon M6 Mark II. Actually a very good combo.
I've made the same conclusions as you. And I've went from APS-C to full frame with all the bells and whistles that I did't wan't to carry with me. After a year not taking that many photos because not carrying the weight all the time with me I went back to APS-C but this time mirrorless. I think with APS-C or M4/3 you get the full benefit of the mirrorless weight loss. I have Nikon Z50 with the 16-50mm and 50-250mm and while the body isn't or at least wasn't necessarily the best possible for the money, those lenses are. Super compact and lightweight and the sharpness amazed me. That combo by the way is only about one kilogram and fits to a fanny pack. Z50 itself is also small and lightweight (wheighs less than many m4/3) but with really good grip. I'd say it's been the most enjoyable camera for my use.
You usually make me smile, but during this one I actually lol'd. Thank you!
I like the eagle flying off of the leaning tower of Toneh in the mirror..... Good video and love the 4/3 footage...
I'm looking forward to your real world view (not review) of the GH6 when you are able. i have been wrestling with the FF vs. MFT thing for a while now but still feel MFT (currently G9) is where I'm likely to stay. As you mentioned, great lenses, more reasonable pricing and more manageable size/weight. Plus the build quality of my Lumix camera still amazes me.
Former photographer here...(Don't worry though, I've since given up using flash in my transition to filmmaking, etc.) I've tested a lot of 2x teleconverters and a couple 1.4x teleconverters (with Canon 70-200 2.8 L, with Canon mount Canon version and Tamron SP teleconverters) and I would agree that the 1.4x is a LOT better optically, and only reduces the light input by 1 stop (whereas the 2x teleconverters have been a LOT worse optically and it reduces the light input by 2 stops).
Shallow focus is bloody irritating - noticed some egregious blurry backgrounds/characters in the Netflix adaptation of Lost in Space. I get filmmakers/DPs use focus as a creative tool to direct the eye, but blurring the bejeesus out of everything apart from the currently speaking character's face just makes it seem like a weird puppet show, talking heads against an impressionistic background. Where are they, what are the background people doing, all interesting info that can inform the story and the worldbuilding.
Turned into a bit of a rant, tl;dr super shallow focus sucks, long live MFT, thanks for your videos dude
Aspect ratio plays a part here. The Em1 Mkii/Mkiii has 300 pixels per millimeter. Calculate that for APS-C and see what the number is. 3:2 aspect ratio has pixels on the sides of the sensor because it's a wider format. So depending what you are shooting, M43 can win.
so wildlife video is different bc shutter speeds of 1/100 or 1/200 (slomo) are fine. then mft is fine. for bird photography, high shutter is better so iso punishes mft
You‘re on fire in this one 🔥🔥
I compared my APSC to full frame for wildlife and nothing replaces the extra reach, especially with lenses designed for the smaller sensor. I get 525mm out of a 350mm and the full frame equivalent set up weighs the same as a cathedral full of anvils. No thanks!
I use em1 mk ii and 300 f4. It is an awesome combo for birds!
ooooof this is making a really good argument for my desire to switch back to m4/3.... i used panasonic lumix g85 for a WHILE then splurged on the a7s3 bc i love the look of full frame.... but the gh6 is almost here and i do like m4/3 bc i have small hands and i like the lightweightedness of it. also the direction you turn a zoom lens is reversed on the sigma art lens for sony so m4/3 just feels more intuitive..... aaahhhh help me camera people!!!
Have both. If you’re a hobbyist you can make economically silly decisions, it’s ok.😉
I'm an old man (61) and I have MFT, APS-C, and FF cameras. Yes, I will only take my MFT when I take a long walk. I get the results I want if I'm carrying my old G85, my D7200, or my Z5. You're right that the real difference is buying good lenses.
61 is not an old man!!
Go to the gym!!😉
@@andresgonzalezcerda7635 I'm high milage.
The reasoning you conduct, clearly indicate that apsc will be the better go-to… larger than m43, while not compromising on the option of getting actually wide angle photos… on apsc Fuji, the widest lens is the 8-16 mm, giving you 12 mm equivalent at the widest. On a m43 withers crop factor is so large, that getting a wide angle lens for a wide angle aspect is nearly impossible.
Re teleconverters, I would personally not use a 2x extender on any system. Too much loss of image quality on top of two stops of light loss. 1.4x is my max. Just get closer.
I switched from Sony A7Rii to Panasonic G9, made a video on it. It was bad, one day I'll make awesome videos like you. Talking to a camera is hard, not saying the same word like 50 times in the video would be nice or not saying ah everyother word. I do mostly wildlife photos and yeah I prefer the G9 with the Pan 100-300 over the A7rii with the Sigma 100-400. Real world, the G9 with the 100-300 reaches further and is much easier to operate and carry. Image quality isn't noticeably different on any platform I share my work on.
BTW the footage of the Hawk is great. It's better than no shot and when you get that close to such a fine creature the worry about specs kind of becomes less important than the experience of "being there"!
"Your mom's blown out."
I'm dead😂
Light transmission also is a factors that plays a lot of part here on brightness: only with Cinema lenses you have an accurate equivalence of light transmission to the sensor, while F/ is a number that is theoretical but does not accounts for glass physics.
Even at the same F stop number, a fixed lens can usually be almost 1, 1.5 stop brighter then a complex zoom lens if you convert F/ to T.
Even ISO sometime is not as "consistent" as it seems, with, for example, Fuji usually being 1 stop darker at the same ISo as other cameras.
Fuji's ISO protects the highlights, but I'm consistently amazed at the multiple stops of shadow detail I can pull out of even their JPEGs, let alone the RAWs. I don't know. I've literally used the Fuji as a light meter to shoot film on a vintage camera with a busted meter, and the film was correctly exposed. So whatever they're doing isn't that far out of standards.
1:44 Thank you. You got it :-D. Welcome to the Thony-Crop-Camera-World.
Regards Andreas
Totally agreed 😃. I have a G9 and use it for bird photography and it's awesome
I own 4 GH5 cameras, they get excellent shots zoomed for photo on a lumix 14-140mm kit lens (28-280mm equivalent), I use a lumix 14mm pancake prime (28mm equivalent) for most video. As cheap as those are used they are excellent!
The G9 would give you even better 1080p, and the Panasonic 100-300 may be better than the Olympus lens (it’s a bit faster).
The OM1 has much better 1080p than the mkiii, not sure it's as good as Lumix. 200fps 10 bit.
Now that you're into wildlife I'd be happy if you tested Sigma 150-600 dg dn and Tamron 150-500 for the Sony. Gonna help me make a decision because can't spend 2000 $ on sony 200-600 😁
Your videos are so entertaining. Thanks man
Hey the great vegetables polish:) just kidding:) loving your work! Please could you help and confirm which camera setup you are using? Are you using Fuji or Sony? Do you recommend Fuji x-t4 with 16mm 1.4 or Fuji x-tx4 with 50mm 1.0? Or is the Sony a73 with 50mm 1.2 better for video? I already have Sony a73 and canon 5dmark 4. Love the Fuji autofocus when you move in up and down in your videos :)
You are the man my friend!
DMs gonna be full of fuming full framers, you brave soul. Love my em1 mkii.. Don't need to take an extra suitcase to bring a few lenses on holiday
Just admit already, you miss that G9 magic. The oly is good but it just doesn't have that same G9 video magic. Bang for the buck I really don't know how or who beats it. Cheers 🍻.
It's such a fun camera. Love mine.
Agree as a G9 owner (minus AF).
"That was an expensive mistake" LMAO quote of the day 😆
"Atmospheric distortion is a myth."
That's how you know he's a Canadian. Warm air? What is that? That's a myth!
great review mr. veg. seriously I'm in awe of the video on the pana s5 full frame. its just sharper. waiting for a pana g10.
I was waiting for you to freak the funk out from the construction noise, LOL
You make for a good laugh but you speak many truths. I like your practical side-by-sides to help dispel any myths or prove a point. I always say that a plumber would not use a jeweler's screwdriver to fix a pipe, and a jeweler would not use a monkey wrench to fix a watch. The same principle applies in photography. Full frame and APSC are good "all around" formats, but M43 has a distinct advantage for wildlife, nature and birds in decent light, or when a more compact/lighter arrangement for travel is called for. There is no format that will be great for all applications under any conditions. Studio and product photography - MEDIUM FORMAT but M43 could have an application there too. Larger sensors do not allow more light in - it's not a solar cell! Larger sensors allow for larger photocell sites so less amplification is needed to capture the same scene. It's the high degree of amplification that introduces noise - when you amply a signal you also amplify noise and the S/N ratio goes down at the lower exposure values - it's that simple. Now, some cameras handle the noise better or apply better anti-noise algos, but overall larger eyeballs means better low light performance.
This is some funny, but really enlightening shit here. I sold all of my Canon FF and APSC, also L glass, in 2017. Bought Olympus MFT bodies and pro lenses, and have never looked back, and with no regrets. I've seen all of the MFT DOF and low light discussions on (seems like) a thousand TH-cam videos and other forums. I don't care, my Oly equipment just works and makes me money, too, and doesn't break my back or the bank. If I really feel the need for some extra Toneh, I'll just back off with a longer lens attached. If a low-light file has too much noise (and most don't), I have DxO Photolab Deep Prime to fix it. So I have no issue using computational photography to get the shot right. I have two Oly EM1-IIs and two EM-5IIs, and they all do a beautiful job for me, and more importantly, my customers. The EM1-III didn't seem like enough of an upgrade for me, but I'll be getting an OM-1 for sure.
Keep up the good work, Casey, I don't ever feel like my time is wasted watching your reviews.
Sounds like someone has had a good dose of reason. Can't argue with results!
Interesting video as always, Just as I'm thinking of parting ways with micro 4/3. Nice tracking on the hawk gave it some context with the trees in the foreground be interesting to throw some post image stabilization on it to see what happens to the foreground trees, if not already done.
Do the 2 tele….you will love it since you are on manual focus anyway., your iso will suffer though but you will get closer if light out is better.
Ahh, if only I could afford that Olympus 150-400mm f/4.5 zoom, I'm sure I could get a date with Brooke Bartleson. But I didn't know my cheap-ass 75-300mm zoom was so good compared to that expensive Sony lens!
It’s cool to see the 300 fps in the GH6 is 10 bit and not cropped. I wonder if they can give us 480 fps cropped and 8 bit in a firmware upgrade. 👍
Thanks. I needed this. 💪
It's so easy to follow trends and feel discouraged when in fact the m43 system is superb. 🤩
No man, nooo go buy the canon r6 and it will burn in your hands with your hands when recording, but it s a cool camera. Every time i look at canon specs from now on i kinda divide them by 2 to make sure