Full Frame vs M43 and APS-C - Say NO to Fanboyism 2018
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- Full Frame vs M43 and APS-C - Say NO to Fanboyism 2018
Sony A7 III - amzn.to/2F3LZid
Panasonic G9 - amzn.to/2EE07Ku
Sony A6500 - amzn.to/2FCU9cG
Panasonic G85 - amzn.to/2n834wx
Sigma 16mm F1.4 DC DN amzn.to/2zjwXgr
Sigma 30mm F1.4 DC DN - amzn.to/2H22jNl
Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art - amzn.to/2BDdM7r
Sigma MC-11 Adapter - amzn.to/2DBQSLd
Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 ASPH - amzn.to/2AXOb3Y
Panasonic Lumix G VARIO 12-60MM F3.5-5.6 ASPH - amzn.to/2BbCPx4
Panasonic Lumix G VVARIO 7-14mm F4 ASPH - amzn.to/2Bqt4HE
Panasonic 20mm F1.7 II APSH - amzn.to/2G6FSJG
More videos:
Sony A7III vs Panasonic G9 - Full Frame or M43?
bit.ly/A7IIIvsG9
Sony A7III vs Sony A6500 - How much better is the A7III?
bit.ly/A7IIIvsA...
1 Year with Sony A6500 - Long Term Review
bit.ly/SonyA650...
Panasonic G9 Review - The Hybrid Shooting Beast
bit.ly/panasonicg9
Panasonic G9 vs Sony A6500 - Hybrid Shooting Comparison
bit.ly/g9vsa6500
Micro Four Thirds vs APS-C - Low Light and Crop Factor Explained
bit.ly/M43cropF...
Also take a look at:
*Panasonic GH5S* Review: bit.ly/GH5Sreview
The Hybrid Shooter Can you please give me the links for the 0.95 lenses? Thanks
amzn.to/2LcZkDY , amzn.to/2zAHrgQ , amzn.to/2Nea3yG
i will share this link video to our lumix users by whatsapp. Would you mind ?
Razeea I certainly wouldn't mind, I would appreciate it.
I unfortunately don't have either of those cameras.
WOW…. you nailed it perfectly!!! The right tool for the right job ….I own two full frame and one Olympus m4/3 camera. If I’m shooting in difficult lighting or need the best quality, the full frame is the tool of choice here. If portability is the main concern…. street photography, hiking, family pictures etc and you’re looking for the best quality to size ratio then you can’t beat m4/3’s. The best camera is the one you have with you and the extra portability of the m4/3’s is a real help. But the bottom line is this…..cameras don’t take pictures….people do.
Thank you, there is indeed is a time and place for every system.
I agree.. I obviously don't mind taking my Canon FF gear to weddings, or any other paid job.. but for just wanting to take a camera out hiking my fujifilm xt2 and 35 f2 for example is awesome!! I usually don't even touch my canon stuff unless its for actual work. I Do kinda want the G9 though, w/ that little 15mm f1.7 :]
come on? Is there any difference in terms of portability between panasonic g9/gh4, g85 and sony A7 or A7ii? yes, actually the full frame a7 is smaller.
it's not an argument for me. Where m43 shines is professional vlogging, you get amazing video quality with 4K 60fps, 10bit, and the best image stabilization + flip out screen. Thats it.
You need to use each camera with lens though, I addressed that in the video, so M43 does have size advantage overall.
over a6500? don't think so.. :) + its true a mid range zoom for a7 will be much bigger, however there are lot of nice small lenses, like the 35mm 2,8 or 28mm f2, 50 1.8.. beat this with m43 lenses.. olympus 25mm f/1.2? you get 50mm f/2.4 right? and it is not small
At the moment, MFT is right for me, because of those reasons:
- all mirrorless
- flipout screens
- OIS is incredible
- 4K 60fps with G9/GH5/GH5s
- 200-600mm equivalent reach with just 520g weight (Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm)
- this all at a rather affordable price
- I don't care for super huge bokeh.
- Dynamic Range and Low Light are not an issue for landscapes, because of bracketing.
Of course, as soon as there's shadow on the bird, you get a problem with noise or motion blur (for bird-movement only, OIS takes care of hand-shake). But that's a tradeoff I am willing to make. Fullframe is heavy and really expensive, if you want to get that close.
However APS-C is also very interesting. You can also get 600mm equivalent reach with about 1kg lenses for reasonable prices.
uHu You can also get 600mm equivalent with 0 weight gain by cropping apsc down to mft sizes.
I really like your summary and totally match my needs.
You can get a good amount of Bokeh from m43
One of the best photography channels on TH-cam! Well said man.
Thank you, I'm really glad that you like this channel!
just subscribed, ... i agree with Photo-Me-Ike. Loved this video. For Street & "Carry-around everywhere" use, which is a better camera overall, EM10iii versus GX9 ? Panasonic is a Rangefinder-style body having only 2 Dials (two-in-one) on Top. Olympus has an EVF in center like Dslrs/Sony, and many more Dials. I like them both and would like to own both, but one at a time, so, which one first ? .... i am slightly tilting in favor of OLY
Chirag Parikh thank you, I appreciate your subscription. I much prefer GX9 to EM10 III, new sensor in GX9 is class above ME10 III.
thanks a lot.
I love that you mentioned “theoretically vs real life” a lot. I feel like these types of comparisons get bogged down when people get off of real world applications and argue about math and test charts.
finally some comparison with common sense and just straight facts. Really rare these days. Well done bro
Thank you!
The most concrete and technical summary about pros and cons for m43 vs full-frame that you can find on the Internet.
To the point and without fanboying.
Great job ... waiting for more content like this!
Thank you, I appreciate your feedback, more similar videos will be coming soon!
Talking about fast zooms: nowadays there’s Panasonic 10-25/1.7 is available, which seems to be pretty awesome in terms of the range, aperture and picture quality.
Yes definitely brings some new options to M43 system, although I wouldn't quite call the aperture and picture quality "awesome".
This is the best video you have made. We need more videos like this dispelling the merit of cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and fanboyism.
Thank you, it't just cameras, there is no need to get emotional here.
“You can , but in the real world, not really” 😂 I love it! Great video 👍🏼
Thank you!
I like your analysis. After about 10 years, I have given up APS-C and gone to a G9, GX7 and Canon 5D III. I used mostly FF lenses on a 77D, which didn't give it much of a size advantage over the 5D III, and when I bought the G9 I like the IQ better than the 77D! And I love the tiny overall size of an MFT kit. There are not many FF lenses that are as good as or better than the pro-level MFT lenses as well.
I have Sony A7 III and Panasonic GH5, love them both, big love! Good for different jobs!
I've used full frame, aps-c and now M43. Of the three I prefer the m43. quality is excellent, price of cameras and lenses are perfect for my budget
Same here. I switched from an a6300 to a Lumix G85 and I really love it. Only downside for me is the slower autofocus but the quality and the IBIS is really good.
@@RaffyUkon What was the reason to switch from A6300?
@@MrSojekEspecially the lack of in body stabilisation. Other than that, the a6300 was really good.
I just started on photography. I have a Sony Nex 5R...Now i have the chance to buy a Lumix Gx7 for 200 USD... M43 is that good to make the switch?
Finally, a level-headed video on sensor sizes. My vote is for MFT because it's by far the best balance between large and small sensors. If you're being paid to shoot portraits, you will probably prefer full-frame. If you're shooting video, there are huge advantages to smaller sensors that make them more useful. The BMPCC 4K is a highly anticipated and recently released MFT camera designed exclusively for professional video work; Blackmagic did not choose MFT for no reason. Camcorders have sensors on par with point-and-shoot cameras because the advantages of smaller sensors are very compelling for video-only devices. All that said, there are some video advantages to APS-C and FF systems, particularly in the shallow depth of field department. It's important to fully understand your tools and choose the right one. In the end, the old truism stands: a good craftsman blames himself; only a poor craftsman blames his tools.
Just wanted to say that this is one of the most helpful and balanced videos I've seen on the topic. Well done! I just bought a GH5 (upgrading from a T6i) and am going back and forth on whether I should keep it or choose the a7iii instead. Really love the bokeh of full frame and low light performance, but the lack of flip screen on the Sony and stronger video settings on the GH5 are compelling.
Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for a great video and channel. Keep it up!
Thank you, I appreciate your feedback!
Still on Sony a6500. Thinking about going A7iii but still want to push my camera to its limits
A6500 is still a great camera, just the user experience could be a bit better.
I don't like the a6xxx Argo it's just too much small for my big hands. Personally, I hope Sony will do what Fuji did with the xt2 and xh1, so people can still buy the small body and others can buy the bigger one.
user experience? I think ergonomics of a6500 is amazing! I also use Fuji XT-2 and I really don't like its ergonomics.
Cześć Emil!
Unfortunately I can't afford A7iii, it would be the perfect choice for me. The video capabilities of a6500 are satisfying, but I am not happy with the picture quality and the lenses.. Even with sigma 16mm 1.4 and 30mm 1.4 which I bought recently, for video there are amazing, however for Bokeh... @ 1.4 you get a lot of chromatic aberration, and then if you stop down.. you loose bokeh. I think only full frame matters. A7iii is not that bad in terms of price, but the sony lenses choice sucks.. on one hand you have the GM's and Zeiss which are super expensive and on other hand garbage like 50mm 1.8, plastic made in china. Where in canon you have so many options from top quality L 1.2 glasses, through great quality and decent price 50mm 1.4 and 35mm f2 to super cheap ang leightweight 50mm 1.8.. This is the thing!
So to sum up.. I don't know what to do :) I'm thinking if there is a sense to switch to Fuji XT-3 cause, in terms of video, it looks wow, and I already have some nice glasses in my family, like 10-24mm, 18-55mm, 55-200mm.. but don't like ergonomics that much.
We're getting to a point that it really hardly matters from a sensor performance perspective. There have been great breakthroughs throughout the years. A GH4 you wouldn't even think of using over ISO800, but the new GH5S blows it away. You used to have very constrasty looks with blownout skies, now we have quite some dynamic range and recoverable highlights with V-LOG L and HLG. The leaps each generation makes is astonishing. I do not need a camera that does ISO1638400. A clean ISO6400/12800 comes a long way. So, for me sensor performance itself isn't an argument anymore. It is true that with larger sensor cameras you have it easier with the options of going wide. Depth of field naturally is shallower as well for the same f-stop. But shallow depth of field was never a standard. People nowadays just set their lens wide open and shoot. That's great and all, but you might want to give your subject some context, some environment. That's the real photography, if you can pull that off. Really think about your subject in relation to its surroundings. Composition. Et cetera.
Besides there are enough lenses for MFT that are plenty sensitive and blur backgrounds just as well. Some gorgeous f/0.95-f/1.8 options out there. And my favourite thing about MFT: you can keep the lenses small, e.g. use the petit Leica 15mm f/1.7. Pair it with a GX80/85 and you're shooting with something the footprint of the LX100 premium compact camera. That's another thing I like about MFT... all the body options. There's something for all types, sizes and budgets. With Sony APS-C you have one A6x00 camera per generation. And Sony hasn't been developing compact lenses specific to the APS-C sensor for years. It does focus on keeping the body tiny... with only leads to problems with ergonomics, practical solutions and features and issues like overheating. Their A7III seems a supergreat camera, tremendous value. But I couldn't take a fullframe system because I'd need to go get and use fullframe lenses, which are bulky and expensive.
I think APS-C is the sweetspot, right between the compactness of MFT and the performance of fullframe. But... as I said, I find Sony's A6x00 and APS-C lens line-up a joke... the same I think of Canon's EOS-M system, which is greatly crippled as to not adversely affect high-end camera sales. I do have a Nikon D5300, but I do not use it much, as I absolutely dislike the traditional DSLR experience and unfortunately they don't have a mirrorless system out. But, with MFT catching up in performance, I think it's a solid choice to stick with it. You get all the body and lens choices. Are able to keep things compact. And they have some of the best features and value out there. The E-M1 Mark II and GH5S flagships all have vari-angle touchscreens, dual cardslots, great batterylife, amazing IBIS, audio interfaces et cetera. I can't fault these camera bodies. Whereas with the other systems I always find something to dislike. We could definitely do with better dynamic range as well as improved autofocus performance (think Panasonic betting on their Depth-From-Defocus horse was the wrong move; they need to acknowledge they made a mistake with that and go with something hybrid pixel sensor level phase detect), but to me it's still the best compromise. While at the end, all cameras are a compromise and there isn't really one definit winner. There's only the best compromise for how one shoots and that varies from one person to the next. So... there's no need for battles over which camera is the best. Just find one that suits you and enjoy it! Fanboyism out of the window!
I agree.
If APS-C had similar options as MFT, it would probably be a great choice.
That being said, the more time passes by, the less important low light performance will be. MFT is already very usable in most conditions ... in some years, it will be there, where FF is now.
Of course FF will be much better by then as well ... and better is always better. But when good is already good enough, you don't need better.
I also don't understand this hype around super blurry backgrounds. Often I would even prefer less, but then you usually get those ugly corners in the bokeh, when you stop down. So less blurr of MFT lenses can also be a benefit.
APS-C is probably the sweetspot between the both. But I feel like both Sony and Canon fail to provide an attractive APS-C mirrorless system as a whole. I have always liked Nikon in terms of value and results. But the traditional DSLR approach really bothered me with my D5300. Nikon however would be the prime candidate for APS-C mirrorless. Hope they'll do that. Otherwise still going to be happy with MFT. I do get the advantage of the FF/MF systems, but I don't want to run another lens collection, I already have so many and to be honest I can make 4/3" sensor performance work for me. Just requires a little more from the person behind the camera. Which, might not be a bad thing.
GH5s is a specific case, it sacrifices the resolution and low native ISO for the low light, so it is suitable for advanced production, but probably not for average filmmaker. Shallow depth of field IMO was and is a standard, especially when big movies used be be shot on 65 / 70mm film which is now making a comeback thanks to ARRI's 65mm sensor. There definitely is something appealing about separating the subject as a way of putting emphasis on the subject which gives you creative options for storytelling.
AF on A7 III is better than on A6500.
I love aps-c especially on Sony but you're right they need to bring it back to life
Agreed, APS-C deserves more commitment from Sony.
I don't think they're going to develop new compact APS-C lenses. They haven't for years. So, with that said. Who would buy another A6x00 with the A7III priced so competitively. The newest E-mount lenses are FF anyways and the larger body has better ergonomics, ports/features and generally less likely to hit issues such as overheating. I can only see it work if they bring back the A5x00 series that's around 500~750 bucks to have a budget mirrorless APS-C option.
I would love to see Nikon go mirrorless APS-C. Their D5x00 line-up is great, but I hate the traditional DSLR experience. That sort of camera mirrorless would be a winner.
Any news of the Sigma 50 mm f1.4 ? I really hope Sigma will come with a 16-70 mm - F2.8 Zoom lens for APS-C...
50mm F1.4 should be introduced in September.
The full frame lenses are expensives and heavy... Every body don't want to have a heavy bag... The next APSC model will not sale if they don't make a effort for the APSC users... PS : I want a fast zoom from Sony or Sigma... (16-50 or 16-70 F2.8).
Well said
Totally agree
You also forgot to mention the natural advantage m43 has for macro as well. More dof. Close shot for the crop factor. High res mode. Better stabilization. Really the best system for macro imo.
Thank you, M43 is indeed very suitable for macro, although the high-res mode and IS are advantages of specific cameras, not necessarily the whole system.
I love using both MFT and APS-C cameras! I think, MFT is "best used" with small and fast primes! At least, that´s my favorite way of using it. This gives me the opportunity to reap many of the benefits of this system: small, light, unobtrusive, IS even with those small and fast primes (2 factors that enable me to use low ISO) and good image quality. And a lot of those cameras look pretty stylish as well!
I was hesitant in the beginning as the intro was a little more than needed IMO.
Then there was; No distracting music, direct and to the point, unbiased opinions and honest usability.
This is The Best take down on image sensor format I've found.
~subbed!!!
Thank you, I appreciate your subscription!
Lumix G7 paired with sigma 16mm f1.4 really took the camera next level! Hyped about more DC DN glass.
Try the Laowa 7.5mm it takes clarity and ultra-wide to another notch with the G7. couldn't believe how much improvement that gave me.
Wouldn't you get similar Bokeh by using a Speedbooster like the Viltrox on the MFT cameras?
Yes, you will, just like when you use speed booster and medium format lenses on full frame...
Great piece!
Also, it is very rare - thus refreshing - to hear someone discuss this topic with reason rather than prejudice and emotion. :D
Thank you!
Hey Hybrid. I'm already following you for a long time and I have to say: your content is great. Really honest and no bias at all. You've convinced me to buy a G80/G85 and I still watch your tutorials on that camera. You deserve way more subscribers.
Thank you, I'm glad that you like content on this channel.
Most of the disadvantages of the micro system can be overcome by practical means except dynamic range it seems to me. Or has your experience overcome this issue or have you got close enough so as not to notice ? As always love your videos always good and for me ballanced options . I suppose I'm a fan boy of people who know what they are doing. Thank you.
Now it is actually the full frame that overcame all of the practical disadvantages.
The main disadvantage of M43 that can't be overcome is high pixel density, which puts extremely high requirements on optical design and limits perceived detail.
@@TheHybridShooter Thank you for your reply. Most of all thank you for your informed and entertaining videos, I enjoy them very much.
you got some info wrong: f2.8 on m43 provides same depth of field as f4.0 on full frame, and both still gather the same amount of light per unit of area (sqmm, sqin, etc) meaning that for a given field of view, the light is identical... the t-stop is different, but non-cine lenses/cameras don't typically care about that.
No, it isn't because the total are is obviously not the same...
An exceptional summary, clear and easy to follow with great images. One factor I’m not sure you mentioned, and the main reason I’m a M4/3 fan - cost. I would love to have a full frame - and maybe I will some day, but I think I got more bang for my buck when considering the lenses.
Thank you, I can't say, that M43 is generally cheaper, especially if you want lenses that can do what FF counterparts can do, they are often much more expensive.
I don't care about the perfect image quality or the best bokeh. I just love taking picture, whatever the brand.
If you want the fullframe look on m43 why not use a focal reducer/speed booster?
Because it adds cost, size, weight and messes up the autofocus.
Excellent video!!! One of your best.
Thank you, I'm glad that you like it!
Thanks for a good overview. I don't how I had missed this one on your channel.
The best comparison so far. Those who say sensor size does not affect depth of field is assuming same focal length and aperture, but in reality, the shooter creates the same framing of the picture, not the same focal length, so this "theoretically correct" statement is completely useless. I would've loved a more in-depth analysis of video. The aps-c/MFT advantage in video derives from what? sensor stablization? less heat? lower resolution?
I used to use the APSC format, but my issue with it became that it was hard to get your "classic" focal length primes on it (28, 35, 40, 50 70,135 etc.) because of the crop factor. It seems there are very few lenses actually designed for APSC. They are all just FF designs and focal lengths from the 35mm era stuck on a smaller sensor with a 1.5 crop factor to deal with. It was frustrating to try and find a fast prime with a field of view that felt "natural" to me. The one exception to this is Fuji. They have unique focal lengths that are designed for a crop sensor.
I switched to M43 for this reason. All their lenses focal lengths are half the FF equivalent and designed specifically for the 2x crop factor. I also just love the smaller form factor as I am more likely to take it with me out and about and can be more discreet when shooting.
I like how straightforward and unbiased this was. It is true that you have to find the format that fits your situation. For me that happens to be M43.
Bought my first "real" camera two years ago and after considering all the angles(or so I thought), I decided on m43 in the form of a Panasonic G7. Well, now that I know a lot more, I think I got lucky and made the right choice. I've since upgraded to a G85 and a GH5 and a couple of gimbals, a Sigma 16mm, a Lumix 25mm and 42.5mm, and a Laowa 7.5mm. I can shoot gorgeous 4k all day long without heat issues and even though I still have a lot to learn, this stable of cameras is not a limitation for me. And you add everything together, and I've got about as much invested in the whole kit as I'd have with a Sony FF and a kit lens.
Big depth of field on MFTs can look great. Especially for video.
Fuji Managed to get better Depth of field in any circumstance, on an APS-C. Not sure why nobody else can figure it out.
Better depth of field? Do you mean shallower? At given aperture the DoF is always the same with the same sensor size and shallower with larger sensor, there is not way to make it better or worse.
This is really good. There are so many videos out there nitpicking at theoretical points that, while technically correct, are pretty misleading compared to the experience of actually shooting with m43 or FF. I'm another person who uses both and I feel like you completely nailed their real-world pros and cons.
Thank you, you said it well, some interpretations of the technical aspects are indeed misleading when it comes to real-world situations.
Your one of my new favorite TH-camrs. Great job! BTW I just got the G9 paired with a viltrox speed booster and sigma 18-35 and I'm extremely pleased with this camera. Watched a lot of your videos before about the g9
Thank you, I would also like to try that Viltrox speedbooster, unfortunately I can't buy one here.
You made a high impact point about respecting people's choices; unfortunately there are many people that don't.
That's right, many people need to validate their decisions, so they don't accept choices of other people.
Probably the best comparison I've seen on TH-cam. Eminently sensible. However I'm still torn between sticking with my Olympus or switching to Sony... 😀
Thank you, I appreciate your feedback!
What did you choose eventually? I had the same thought but eventually chose to stick with Olympus, partially for peace of mind but also because when I got the Leica 12-60 I was so mind blown by the quality of even casual pictures that I thought there's no need to change at all.
I'm glad Olympus came out with the EM5 MkIII, I can't wait to be able to afford it!
I actually use both my A7iii and G85 in a very similar way as you do. Hands down if I ever have to do any recording beyond 25 minutes continuously or in a warm or hot condition, I will always reach for my G85.
Recently i did a wedding with my a7iv another partner used the panasonic gh5 I have to say I'm very surprised for the quality of the panasonic great quality and colors almost similar to nikon
The difference between A7 IV and GH5 had to be huge though.
I agree with some of your other viewers- this is one of your best videos, yet! Such a clear and well reasoned ( and balanced) discussion on the different sensors. Quite illuminating - if you will pardon the pun! Thanks for doing this.
You're welcome, I'm glad that you like this video, thank you for watching!
I am just sending the link to this video to a friend of mine!
Nice review as always - thanks - both cameras are great - m43 will make a lighter kit - and cost of G9 kit will be cheaper as Sony lenses are expensive -
I have M43 and APS-C and FF - the ergo on the G9 is just awesome - and great Touch LCD interface and nice menu system and awesome IBIS - but yes I love my Fuji XT2's as well and Sony A7 III - and also my many 1 inch cameras - including the Sony RX10 m4 - with 24-600mm range - try that in FF :) - so yes a 1 inch sensor is needed -
For street shooting I tend to use my M43 cameras more - and my Fuji Xt2's - only at night would I consider taking the A7 m3 - but only if I am shooting color and trying to have as little grain as possible - but at night I often shoot BW so grain not an issue - so a light kit is welcome - would like to see Fuji include IBIS in their XT3/4/5 body - which I guess will not happen - rumor says no IBIS in XT3 - and X-H1 is just to bulky for street shooting - so m43 is ideal - both Panasonic and Fuji have very nice BW modes - FF sure has its place as well - Sony seems to want to phase out their APS-C bodies - yes they are producing new bodies but very very few lenses -
Pentax Sony Fuji Panasonic Canon Nikon Olympus all have nice cameras for the most part - and there is no perfect camera - as there are various needs -
Interesting though to see how Sony and Fuji have really diehard Fanboys :) there are more old faithfuls of Nikon and Canon but not as fanatic :) Fuji has more of a Puritans, that hate Touch and IBIS etc - Sony Fanboys sometimes forget that Nikon and Panasonic and even Canon and Fuji that use Sony sensors :)
I have been looking for a clearer and honest comparison for ages. This is it right here! Keep up the good work!
Thank you, I will do my best to keep it up!
Great video as usual you do know what you are talking about! I know you didn't have the time to go over everything but can you answer these things that bug me about the a73
1-the a73 the lack of features compared to the advantages of the 4/3rds G9 features per price of a full frame camera, to get the features of a G9 or EMii you would have to spend twice as much (you would have to buy the a7rii, D810) for a full frame camera. They have stripped down the a7iii
2-Also besides low light and dept of field do you really get that much more? Yes only if you pixel peep. I took two shots side by side a73 and G9 and the only time i saw a big difference (quality wise) is when i magnified to 100%.Yes the full frame files were cleaner but not by much and in real life how often do you magnify to 100% unless you are doing a lot of cropping.
3-What are your thoughts on comparing the stabilization of the G9, if i shot the G9 hand held for 4 seconds @ 800 ISO i can get a very clean shot, to achieve this with a73 due to it's poor stabilization you must go up to 8-12,000 ISO @15-30fps to achieve this equivalent (i have tried this when i had the a73) , the two pics were very close but the a73 shots were not as sharp. Sports at night the full frame easily wins but with any non moving shots it appeared to me to be about equal (with the G9 stabilization)
so can you really compare two picks at the same ISO when one has one of the best stabilization in the business?
4-Video wise you would need to buy a gimble to equal the stabilization of the G9 (i can send you my walking video comparing the G9 with a73 if you like) the a73 stabilization in video mode to me was not very good
5-What is your thoughts on apc D500, it is about equal to most full frame cameras in every way even close with dept of field. Because of this i am waiting for the new d760 it will have the features of the d750 plus the new full frame sensor
Yes a73 is a better all around camera for just taking pics and it is better with dept of filed without a doubt, but with video at night you must use high ISO's which nobody really wants to do but the a73 can easily handle it, but in good day light the G9 EMii will win with it's 18-20fps or 6k modes and 80mp mode. Please give me your thoughts on the above questions thanks again and good job God bless
I personally don't miss any particular future in A7 III. With FF you also get better dynamic range, smoother highlights roll-off, richer RAW files, more color depth and so on (generally). IBIS indeed helps with non moving subjects, but holding camera still for a couple of seconds in not always possible. I have never used D500.
Thank you for very interesting video! I for example choose Fujifilm XT3, because I think APS-C format is a "golden mean" between FF and 4/3 systems. Fujifilm I choose because APS-C is a main format for them, and they put full scale of their efforts in this format. For other big vendors like Canon, Nikon and Sony APS-C line is secondary, and I think they do not care much for it.
You're welcome, X-T3 is great camera, one of the best that I have used. I also think that it is a real shame that manufacturers are neglecting APS-C.
I'm just gonna start slinging "oh, you don't use medium format? don't talk to me about sensor size then" at all the fullframe-only fanboys lol.
I would love to have a GH5 as a second video camera, but since I mainly use Sony FF for pictures a Sony APS-C felt like a wiser choice
Having both FF and APS-C Sony camera is very useful, because of the extra reach with FF lenses on APS-C.
Great, very reasonable and balanced overview! Actually one of the best on the topic that I happened to come across.
It would be worth mentioning Speed Boosters for the sake of completeness. These can cost as much as a lens, but can help getting nearly a full frame look even with M43 (as close as one can possibly get). Of course with all the hassle around it (lagging AF or in fact mostly manual focus, corner softness, chromatic aberrations).
Thank you, the speedbosters are separate topic, I will make a video about those in the future, but you can also get speedboosters for full frame cameras and use medium format lenses, so I wouldn't say that the possibility of using speedbooster is an advantage of sensors smaller than full frame.
Thank you for your insightful and unbiased approach. I really enjoyed it. My 2 cents is that I have owned all sorts of systems and was never married to anyone f them. At the moment, I find Sony FF is the best fit for me and what I do. My only issue with m4/3 is the pricing. They are too expensive for what they offer and the quality they offer. Today, OM-D E-M 1II can be purchased for $1400 which is more to the actual value of the system rather than the $2000 original price.
aside from that, in this day and age, we have fantastic systems with strengths and weaknesses and have the choice to get exactly what we need. There is no barrier to creating great images/videos especially in regards to the hardware. I do not like the versus series either. There is no perfect system and looking for one is useless. Thank you for the great content.
Thank you, Sony FF system is very strong at the moment, and the pricing of the A7 III was also quite aggressive, so they have cough the competition by surprise. Hopefully it will positively affect prices of upcoming cameras.
I was hovering over the dislike button waiting for you to say some nonsense about deeper depth of field in MFT systems. But you didn't fall into that trap. You, Sir, nailed this video!
Thank you!
I enjoy just about all kinds of photography and I agree, APS-C and micro 4/3 seem to be underrated, at least compared to full frame. I guess that APS-C and micro 4/3 is better in some sense for astronomy and microscopy, since you can get a higher crop factor. I have found it seems that many photographers who want to delve into extreme macro prefer APS-C over Full Frame. Sure, Full frame can have better dynamic range, but I think that the benefits of smaller sensors need to be discussed or thought about more. My dream is to have a very small camera (like a Sony RX100) with at least a micro 4/3 sensor and have it have the features that a Gopro has, and be based on apps. Samsung once made great app-based cameras, and it's sad that they have quit on cameras.
I don't think that crop sensor are underrated, there is a wide base of happy crop sensor users.
one thing, how can you say 4/3 consumer less power? the battery life on most 4/3 cams is abysmal and is a real sticking point for me. The battery life on my G85 is only decent if i turn the LCD off but in general, i find myself needing to charge the battery after every one or maybe two shooting sessions (defined as a day or so of walking around and shooting pictures intermittently). Also as far as portability, the better m 4/3 cameras are not much more portable than say aps-c and about equal in most aspects i've found, lenses are just a bit smaller, which is nice, zoom lenses considerably so but at the cost of less light gathering, a big loss. Hardly any of the options are pocketable so I end up bringing all the crap anyway.
Thanks for a great, sensible comparison. Keep it up.
Regarding low light conditions - I'm not sure the difference is tangible for most photographers (let alone amateurs), unless maybe one specializes on night sky photography or something. I've seen professional photographers getting amazing photos with M43 in the night too, so not sure what's the winning factor here for most people, slight (maybe even very slight) difference in how much light different types of cameras can use, or the (not so slight) difference in the size and weight of the two camera types.
When you can carry a superb camera in you pockets (in case of T43) - it means it much more likely you'll carry it with you. While with crop or full frame - it's much more likely you'll leave it at home when going out.
Maybe somebody have done a in-depth comparison of photos taken with low light conditions with FF vs M43. That way we could understand how actually relevant is this difference.
There is a huge difference in low light. You always need to pay attention when looking at high-ISO samples. Especially Olympus ambassadors tend to choose easy low dynamic range scenes, where the noise is not that visible, typically a night portrait of well lit subject and totally dark background. Here you can see what happens in high DR scene th-cam.com/video/i-KoF7VBrJs/w-d-xo.html
@@TheHybridShooter
I see. Thank you.
I humbly appreciate your opinions. Very well put. I always follow your channel. Thanks for all your great videos.
Thank you, I appreciate your feedback!
Very wise statement at the end!
There are no perfect or best choices for everyone, it's based on personal needs and preferences.
Thank you, that is right.
Going from an APS-C system to a Full Frame, you have to get used to it. Old behaviors don't work as well. You need to make adjustments. But my god the low light, the dynamic range and Sony really has put the kitchen sink in these cameras. That is the 7th tab! So I am happy with my set up. Even if it is a bit bigger and definitely more expensive to get the good lenses for.
If I was hiking a lot I probably had bought a nice MFT model.
I personally didn't make any adjustments when I bought full frame camera apart from using higher apertures in most situations.
I'm with you on the whole 'fanboyism' thing - whatever tools I might personally choose to fulfill a particular photographic purpose, there is no benefit to me in restricting the choices available to others to fulfill THEIR specific needs.
Exactly, and it doesn't apply only to photography.
Excellent video! Commenting before watching the video
Thank you, I hope that you are right about that!
I take my best images from my Olympus 16mp EM1 and EM5 mk2 using an extensive range of primes and telephoto lenses, I post process in Light Room and touch up in Affinity Photo and then I print on my Canon Pixma Pro100S on Canon glossy plus photopaper A3 size and they look friggin stunning, the depth, the detail, the colour rendition, quite simply beautiful in every way. And then I panic, is this as good as it gets!
For what I need, Fujifilm X100F is a perfect camera for me (at the moment). Great video, man!
Thank you!
Hello. I have recently tridepos Panasonic g90 as well as Sony A7 II. The later give me a wonderful image quality but felt very old. The other camera give me that kind of flat images. Still a more modern camera. Not sure which way to go.. there is also a lot of mirrorless aps-c cameras. What would you get today?
A7 III or X-T4.
6:44 How did you create these images? Just raw files with lots of editing to bring back the detail?
Yes, those are RAWs with recovered highlights and shadows and some extra editing.
Today, Apr 8th 23, the A7iii is $2,000.00, the G9 is $900.00, the question is: are you willing to pay twice the price for camera, plus twice for the same zoom, prime lens to get that FF advantage?
Yes, I am. I have been using A7 III for 5 years, sold G9 probably 3 years ago. The lenses are definitely not the same though, you need to take equivalency into account.
Not only the content but these pictures in video are utterly amazing! Subbed right away
Thank you, I appreciate your subscription!
Thank you for an interesting and (so far as I can tell) *accurate* discussion! The issue of total light versus light per square millimeter is one that is rarely explained well.
Let’s be honest here we all bought APS C or M43 because we couldn’t afford full frame camera and lenses
I bought the GH5 for the 4K 60p :) But if there was an affordable FF camera that did 4K 60, then I'd be on that.
All?.. speak for yourself. I have an a7r3 and just added a gh5 .. different tools for different jobs
No, I didn't want size of FF.
No one buys mft to save money lol. Their lenses expensive af!
RandomTechS@#T
I bought a Nikon D800 new from a retail shop. I bought the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S also new. I bought a Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S used and a Nikkor 16-35 f/4 AF-S also used.
And then I kept using my Nikon F2 from 1977 and some manual focus prime lenses because my digital kit became to heavy.
Sold all the lenses and the D800 and bought a Sony A7 II with an adapter. I use it now like a digital Nikon F3 (time automatic with mechanically preselected Aperture als manual focus with prime lenses only) and I am pretty ok. But now I want autofocus. I thought about the Sony 24 105 but too heavy. I might end selling the Sony and go either Fuji APS-C or MFT her soon.
No. It is not about money. I had an 8000$ System and sold it and might end up with a 1500$ system that weights less than a third and I would do it again
Great video, very balancd. I love my Pen-F but would like to try out a bigger sensor sometime to get the original fov on adapted vintage lenses.
Thank you!
It's not full frame, but I just recently bought a used Viltrox EF-M2 II 0.71x speedbooster for my G85 (adapting M42/QBM to EF, then to MFT with the booster) and it's breathing quite some life into a few of my vintage lenses - might be worth a try if you can find it on the cheap (in my case I paid about 80€), and can live with a 1.42x crop factor in exchange for the world class IBIS and all the great usability of MFT bodies.
Since there is also a booster for Fuji, the X-H1 and X-T4 are becoming amazing options for adapting old glass with the benefit of IBIS and hardly any crop (1.06x after use of the booster, if I remember correctly). If you're still looking at a second system, that might be a way to consider going.
It's about the pictures, not about gear, not about sensor size - that is being forgotten by 95% of the so-called "Fanboys".
I don't necessarily agree with that, if you want to shoot certain types of pictures, like low light, HDR scenes or sports, you just need the right equipment.
Not really. Composition-wise, one can make good compostions with good Light (means: sunshine) and any camera, even a 1910 Kodak Brownie would do - not from the Image Quality Point, of course. Who does make HDR? I really hate these bonbon, way articial colorshots, being called "HDR" for so many years - 1st was being introduced with Photomatix HDR Tool....these look horrible, that is not for what HDR was being supposed to be. HDR *is* nice, when it does look natural - but not this kinda crap Toy, FisherPrice fugly Look, what 90% people understand what "HDR" is....that looks disgusting, but i am a b&w fan anyway.
I mean HDR as any scene with both dark and bright parts of the frame, where you need to capture the detail, not modern definition of HDR.
Hi, I’m looking for a mirrorless camera and my budget is between 700 and 900 €. I like photography and video making and I was searching a camera for both photos and video. I already have a Nikon D90 and I was interested in a MFT camera (g80?) but I’m not sure. I’m not a professional photographer but I am improving my capabilities... is that a good choice?
Thank you for your videos, are well recorded, edited and commented 😄
G80 is very good camera for the price. Also take a look at Sony A6300.
Prior to moving to Sony full frame (i.e. A7RII, A7RIII, A7III and hopefully soon the A7SIII), I shot with a GH4 and toyed around with buying a GH5. Although much of what was said in this video is accurate, the selection and quality of optics are far better on my full frame Sony lineup than they are for APS-C and M43 lineups for both Sony and M43 camera formats. Somebody mentioned cost in the comments. I completely agree that full frame is EXPENSIVE. And many high end lenses for full frame are heavy, negating the weight advantage that Sony enjoys.
And with the advent of the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, there are lower cost alternatives to the GM series. I've owned the Tamron for almost 4 weeks now and have been doing everything in my power to cause it to glitch according to other user reports. Nothing has happened yet. In fact, the video performance under AF-C is impressive. If we see more FF glass coming from third party manufacturers, I think it is quite likely that many will see that FF is more affordable and within grasp of many APS-C and M43 users.
Great explanations and awesome quality and content here. If you don't mind, what grip/cage is on that A6500?
Thank you, those are SmallRig cages:
SmallRig Cage Kit for Sony A6500 - amzn.to/2rjpcWQ
SmallRig L-Bracket / Base plate for A6500 - amzn.to/2s8bN3n
The Hybrid Shooter Thanks so much!
Finally- A true comparison video.... appreciate your maturity and conviction to remaining neutral as you compared
Thank you!
If I was using the Oly with a 300MM lens for a 600MM field of view, is there any way to also get the bokeh that comes with a longer focal length 600MM lens?
When tracking a distant subject like a race car or footballer - or my nephews in a crowd - I often need separation from an ugly or distracting background.
Maybe a bokeh art filter?
I think the image processing in smartphones now commonly generates artificial bokeh or maybe a gaussian blur.
Sony's prices make full frame mirrorless more accessible than ever. Canon/Nikon still won't do the same. If you're half serious about photography, the full frame advantage awaits you.
Canon / Nikon don't need to do it because the have the brand name.
The Hybrid Shooter We'll see how it plays out in the long run. If Canon/Nikon makes a successful FF mirrorless then they will maintain their brand leadership for years to come.
I have done an odd experiment with 6D, SL2 Canon and MFT Lumix - where I am shooting close-ups and trying to evaluate how sharp the lens or sensors are - my comparison is based on me shooting FILM for many many years - and I am not impressed with digital sharpness. I've tried using autofocus as well as manual - and nothing compares to slide or color negative film sharpness - IMHO. AM I imagining things or is this also a complaint with everyone. I have used prime lenses, zooms, Canon, Tamron, Sigman lenses - and nothing is as sharp as film. I will say that out of the 3 cameras - the 6D produces sharper images than the SL2 or MFT. Any feedback is welcomed.
2:48 Panasonics 10-25mm f1.7 is on the way :3
Edit: messed up the numbers
I don't think so.
@@TheHybridShooter yeah i got it wrong, its a 10-25mm f1.7
but hey, close enough :')
Forgive me if im wrong, and this was under the limited informations available on the subject, But crop factor has no effect on the T-stop (Light transmission) of a lens only the F-stop. So essentially the only thing effecting low light capability is the sensor. Many of the mft primes such as the lumix 25 f1.7 were marked at a t-stop of 2 on dxo mark which is the same as many other full frame lenses of the same f-stop. Given a full frame and mft camera were put against each other, they should perform similarly when the crop is accounted for on the mft (if at 100 iso on the full frame, put at 400 iso on mft) in a low light test, if of course focal length, megapixel, and t-stop value is the same.
No, that is not correct. T-stops are just more accurate reading of how much light actually gets through the lens, but t-stops are affected by crop the way same as F-stops. You need to multiply the T-stops the same way as F-stops to find out the equivalent depth of field and how much light gets to the sensor in comparison with full frame.
T-stops are a constant though, the t-stop ranking given by dxo mark does not change based on the system the lens is deigned for, the entire reason the measurement was created was to have a constant measurement of light transmission compared to other lenses. other information ive found has also stated that crop factor has no effect on T-stop.
The F-stop are constant as well, it is just the size of the front element divided by the iris opening, so F2.8 is still F2.8 regardless of weather it is on FF or M43. It is just *full frame equivalent* that is different on FF and M43 and there you need multiply it. T-stops work the same way as F-stops, T-tops just take into account optical construction of each lens.
One more comment... the video mentions the smaller body size potential of M43 vs. full frame. Looking side by side with the GH5 and the a7III, it becomes clear that the GH5 isn't smaller than the A7III.
That is not relevant for general size comparison, for example GX9 is much smaller than smaller than any full frame.
Boy, you are spot on. Very clearly explained. No bias, no misconceptions.
Thank you!
You forgot to mention one thing: The high base-ISO of all MFT sensors as a limit of IQ.
To get the same image quality as a FF at ISO 100 you would have to use ISO 25 on MFT, but the base ISO is closer to 200 in all cases. And at that base ISO there's lots of noise in dark areas, making it impossible to bring out those without sacrificing detail.
There are plenty of situations where you can use the base ISO (outdoors, in the studio, for long exposures, ...), and in all those cases MFT suffers needlessly simply because there's no low base ISO available.
No I didn't, I briefly mentioned that at 3:25 but I generally didn't want to make this too technical. I don't agree that there is a lot of noise in dark areas at ISO 200 on M43, I have no problem at all while boosting shadows by +100 in post at ISO 200 on M43.
Good overview on pros and cons of MFT and APS-C vs FF. One thing not mentioned is the secret weapon of both MFT and APS-C: speedboosters. A speedboosted f2.8 FF zoom is a dream come true, equivalent to a 40% wider f2 lens. It totally eliminates the drawbacks of a cropped sensor while significantly improving the image quality of the FF lens. Even without a speedbooster, a plain MFT or APS-C adapter uses only the central rectangle of a FF lens, eliminating the softness and vignetting at the edges of the lens.
Thank you, although I don't think that option to use speedboosters is advantage specific to crop sensors, you can you speedbooster and medium format lenses of full frame as well. It also adds weight, size, cost and messes with autofocus. Crop lenses only use central part of the lens, but they also have higher pixels density, as I explained in this video, so FF usually has higher perceived resolution.
I've never heard of a speedbooster for using medium format lenses on a FF camera. Is such a thing available for Nikon or Canon cameras? On MFT and APS-C, speedboosters aren't any bulkier than a plain adapter, but cost and auto-focus limitations are indeed drawbacks.
I don't know about speedboosters for Canon / Nikon full frame, but Kipon makes Hasselblad to Sony E-mount speedbooster for example.
PLs can you tell your opinion about Panasonic g80 in comparison with fuji xt20. Most use is youtube videos and photo of my family. What to choose? Thanks for answer.
I haven't tested X-T20, so I unfortunately can't compare those.
High five for that drop of truth at the end!! And awesome video man!!
Thank you!
drooling over all these flagships right now and naked sensors.
Nice video, as always.
Personally, I would be interested in a real life image quality comparison between A7III with kit zoom lens (and a cheap prime ) and your G9 with the Leica lens (and a expensive prime). (case in which budget and portability would be in the same league...)
Or at least, you opinion on this subject?
Best regards!
Personally, I prefer the G9 with Leica 12-60 over A7 III and kit lens. The kit lens is fine but it has a bit of dull "kit lens look".
Thanks for this review, so clear and easy to understand. When I bought into the M43 system I was aware of the depth of field implications compared to full frame, however was not aware of the differences of total light gathered and how that might impact image noise. You mention this around the 3:20 mark in your video and also go onto say that the increased base ISO of 200 on the 20mp M43 sensors goes some way to mitigating this. If you ever had the time, would be great if you could go into this in a little more depth. Also, would the dual ISO capability of the newer M43 cameras largely erode this total light gathering advantage the Full Frame sensors have?
You're welcome, ISO 200 just increases noise in comparison with ISO 100 and it you need to use faster shutter speed and more dense ND filters. Dula ISO won't help much, because new BSI full frame sensors have more multiple base ISO settings that are being switched automatically.
There are no f/0.95 lenses for Sony's FE-Mount. Well, there was at least one, the Mitakon Speedmaster 50mm, but the actual result was about a T/1.4. And so far, no one's made an automatic f/0.95 lens. Even Nikon's announced $6,500 f/0.95 for the Z system is slated to be manual. Support of a real f/0.95 lens was Nikon's big argument for going to a 55mm flange size.
Perfectly said. You do not use a srewdriver to hammer in nails ....
Beautifully done William. Keep them coming.
Thank you!
Great video, had me reaching for like and subscribe, but I already did! One of the few on TH-cam who approach this topic in such a balanced, neutral way and from a real-world perspective. Thank you for getting the comparisons right with regards to the aperture equivalence, too - this is something that is so often done wrong or left out entirely. Keep it up!
Thank you, this indeed is very controversial and complicated topic, I'm glad that you like this video.
Thank you! People complain about the G-Master series lens prices without understanding the physics behind them.
I'm curious. Would you say that m4/3 has advantages over full frame when it comes to video? Am I wrong in noticing that rolling frame can sometimes be an issue with the Sony full frame cameras?
Generally, no, although Sony has to process much more data from the sensor, which causes that rolling shutter shutter.
Very useful video guide as usual. Thank you my friend
You're welcome, thank you for watching!
I thought I found a loophole for m4/3. I bought the Mitakon 25mm F0.95 lens with the G85. Figured that would give me the most feature rich full frame looking camera for the price. It has worked out pretty well, but at f0.95 it's not that sharp and looks better at f1.4, so my advantage shrunk from f1.9 equiv to f2.8. That plus the colors aren't very good on the lens, and the annoyance of having to manual focus on myself from a distance is a pain lol.
I still get a respectable look for video, but I realize how much easier filming myself would be with a full frame camera with good auto focus. I'm just waiting on something like the 6D II with a flip out screen, but better quality video. If the Sony a6700 has a flip out screen, I'd consider upgrading to that, but I do want a full frame camera still. We'll see what Canon's mirrorless or the a7s III has in store ;)
F0.95 lenses are extremely difficult to make, basically only Leica does those right, so those can't really compensate for the crop factor.
I loved this lens on my G85 and love it even more on my G9. It is better suited as a video lens IMO, as the aberrations and lack of sharpness off-center is noticeable for stills.
Maybe a Speedbooster with Fullframe Lenses would work for you.
It's just sad, that they're a bit pricey.
With an Olympus f1.2 prime, you'll have decent shallow depth of field, autofocus, and very sharp images wide open. The downsides are price, size and not quite as shallow DoF as a f2 lens on full frame. But really, you may be okay with that, given the advantages.
Honestly, I don't get Olympus Pro lenses, for the price of one Olympus Pro lens, you can have older full frame camera with F1.8 prime that will give shallower depth of field and similar or better IQ because of lower pixel density.
Very well said indeed. It confirms that I made the right choice for me. As someone who is not a professional photographer, likes to travel light and mostly does landscapes & architecture photography, the M43 system is great. Having a small and light system is worth a lot to me, and shallow depth of field is generally not desirable for the style of photography I do. But that is not to say that M43 is the right choice for everyone.
Thank you, M43 really is good system for that type of photography.
Everything exists for a reason. So choosing which format also gives you trade off.
People just have to figure what are their needs and choose the best suiting format for them.
Excellent synopsis of the various formats - thank you.