Micro Four Thirds v Full Frame: The Photography Rabbit Hole Explained
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ธ.ค. 2024
- In this video I try to explain some of the key differences, and similarities, between micro four thirds and full frame cameras when it comes to exposure and depth of field.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @chrisbaitsonphoto
• Buy Me A Coffee:
www.buymeacoff...
• My Camera Gear:
www.amazon.co....
•Follow Me On Instagram:
/ chrispikz
• Buy my PRESETS here:
www.etsy.com/u...
• Buy My PRINTS here:
www.redbubble....
•About me:
My name is Chris and I am a landscape photographer from East Yorkshire focussing on coastal long exposures using my micro four thirds Olympus cameras.
My music is provided my Audiio, sign up below and use code SAVE70 to earn 70% off of your first 12 month subscription:
audiio.com/par...
#microfourthids #landscapephotography #cameras
Absolutely brilliant explanation Chris. I have the Em1 mkii with 12:40 40:150 plastic fantastic and 45 1.8 and absolutely love it.
Finally, a sensible person on TH-cam. Came from apsc to FF to mft. Couldn't be happier. People called me crazy for ditching the r6mkii for an em1mkii and an om1.
A good, easily understood explanation of the often misunderstood properties of lenses and formats. Always good to hear someone championing M43!
Hey Chris,
I really enjoyed your video-it's great to see someone break down the differences between full-frame and Micro Four Thirds in a clear and accessible way. I’ve been diving into this topic myself lately, and there are a couple of things that stood out where I think the explanation might be a bit off (or at least, a little more nuanced). Hope you don’t mind me sharing!
*1.* You mentioned that sensor size doesn’t affect depth of field, but actually, it does. For the same field of view, aperture, and distance from the subject, full-frame will naturally give you a *shallower depth of field* than Micro Four Thirds. That’s why you had to stop down on the full-frame (f/5.6) compared to the M43 (f/2.8) to match the depth of field. So in practice, the sensor size definitely plays a role in how much background blur you can get!
*2.* When you said that aperture doesn’t impact light differently between the two systems, I think I get where you’re coming from in terms of exposure. *f/4 is f/4* when it comes to how much light hits the sensor. But the *full-frame sensor gathers more total light because it’s bigger*, which means it generally handles low light better (less noise, more dynamic range). So while the exposure might be the same, full-frame can still give you cleaner, better-quality images in certain conditions because it’s capturing more light overall.
*3.* I totally agree that you can get a similar field of view by using equivalent lenses on both systems (like 25mm on full-frame and 50mm on M43). But to really get the same *depth of field and bokeh*, you have to adjust the aperture, as you did in your example. Full-frame will still have the edge when it comes to getting that creamy background blur we all love, due to the larger sensor size.
Your video really breaks things down in a straightforward way, but I think if you add just a bit more about how sensor size influences depth of field and the overall light-gathering ability, it would give your viewers an even clearer picture of the differences between the two systems.
Keep up the awesome work-I’m definitely looking forward to more of your videos!
Cheers,
Jimmy
Nella vita reale con la pellicola 35mm (oggi, full-frame), fotografavo i matrimoni usando la pellicola 160 e 400 iso, a seconda della quantità di luce ambiente che avevo (esterni durante il giorno verso una chiesa poco luminosa, per esempio) e, nonostante avessi ottiche fisse luminose, raramente le usavo a tutta apertura perché nel reportage in genere, occorre descrivere l'ambiente.
Agli sposi si possono fare solo poche foto con grandi sfuocati; del resto esigono soprattutto ricordare dove si è svolta la cerimonia...
Nel paesaggio, dovevo spesso chiudere il diaframma per avere una foto completamente nitida, a parte rare foto creative.
E nella mia lunga esperienza, non era raro essere in difficoltà perché ero costretto a rovinare la foto, causa diffrazione, per la chiusura eccessiva del diaframma.
Quando nel 2004 scelsi il sistema reflex 4/3 con una Olympus E-1, mi accorsi presto della differenza e delle facilitazioni che avevo, nei matrimoni e non solo.
Potevo usare spesso il diaframma f:2,8 perché mi dava una profondità di campo già ottimale, e comunque raramente chiudevo oltre f:5,6 ed inoltre, pur con un sensore di soli 5 megapixel e un limitato range di sensibilità, fino ad 800 iso non avevo reali problemi.
Facendo due calcoli, avevo di colpo una operatività sul campo come se avessi una pellicola da 3200 iso, visto che potevo diaframmare 2 stop in meno e comunque avere una foto poco rumorosa (simile alla grana della pellicola) grazie agli 800 iso reali.
Tralascio che potevo stampare nel formato 30x40 cm (simile ad un A3), una proporzione 4/3 che nella foto verticale, lo trovo decisamente più godibile.
Foto bellissime, come qualità.
Per questo non ho mai avuto l'idea di passare al full-frame, pur avendo una grande esperienza passata con questo formato.
Facilitazioni anche nei paesaggi, raramente chiudo oltre f:8 e comunque anche ad f:11 la difrazione non è così devastante come f:22 che ero (a volte) costretto ad usare con la pellicola.
Vogliamo descrivere il close-up (fotografia ravvicinata) fino ad arrivare alla macro, dove la profondità di campo si riduce tantissimo per via dell'elevato rapporto di riproduzione?
Se oggi usassi una full-frame ed amassi questo genere fotografico, mi doterei di ottiche shift e tilt mentre con un sensore 4/3 sono ragionevolmente agevolato.
Riassunto: ero già felice nel 2004 e sapevo che poteva solo migliorare, il sensore.
Il full-frame ha un reale vantaggio (per me) solo nella ripresa in scene di grande movimento con pochissima luce ambiente.
Ad esempio notturne foto sportive molto dinamiche.
Se fosse la mia fotografia principale, una Sony con un sensore da 12 mp sfrutterebbe al massimo la pochissima luce ambiente.
Comunque nulla vieta di usare una moderna micro 4/3 con ottiche ultra luminose: tranquillamente oggi si può scattare a 6400 iso ed anche più, usando software AI che migliorano la resa davvero molto bene.
A parità di profondità di campo, comunque un sensore full-frame si deve usare ad una sensibilità 4 volte maggiore, annullando il vantaggio che ha nel raccogliere più luce alla stessa sensibilità.
Sta al fotografo quale sistema scegliere, con consapevolezza.
Nulla vieta di usare anche il super full-frame anche solo per il piacere ludico del fotografare.
@@jimmywestphoto there is a difference in that the sensor on a full frame camera is larger and needs enough light to expose it all, and the sensor of a micro four thirds camera is smaller and needs enough light to expose that smaller sensor.
@@chrisbrown6432 That's not how it works. Sensors don’t “need more light” or “less light” depending on their size-that’s not a thing. Exposure is determined by aperture, shutter speed, and ISO, which work the same across all sensor sizes.
What actually matters is the total light gathered. A full-frame sensor captures more total light because it’s physically larger, which is why it performs better in low light (less noise, more dynamic range). But the light per unit area-what determines exposure-doesn’t change. f/4 is f/4, whether it’s on full-frame or Micro Four Thirds.
This idea of a sensor “needing more light” or “less light” just misunderstands how exposure and sensor size interact.
Focal length is focal length and aperture is aperture, field of view is the only variant really in terms of composition. That's why my G9 is actual better in some low light scenarios than my Sony A7II, as the greater depth of field I get at the same aperture helps me lower the ISO. I literally got called crazy for that but it's simple math and practical application. And that's another thing that people ignore, camera processing power. The later FF camera sensors do perform better in low light, but honestly I compared my G9 to my relatively new A7C and there really isn't much difference which annoys some people when I say it but it's true when talking about real world application.
@@kcphotogeek6207 that is my understanding that micro four thirds sensors have an advantage in low light as the sensor is smaller than a full frame camera and a full frame camera has a bigger sensor to cover, that is harder to do in low light for a full frame camera. There is more to it than that but that is the simple version.
Chris, I am really enjoying your content. So straightforward and real. Not a bunch of pressure to get the latest and greatest and all the gear. You keep it simple, use what many would find to be accessible gear, and you bring back great images. I find that helpful, refreshing, and inspiring. Keep up the great work and don’t chase the algorithm.
I appreciate that! I've always tried to keep it grounded.
Wise words indeed Chris. As you do and say so well, get out in nature, enjoy its beauty, power, calm. Take a picture with what ever device you enjoy and if the image makes you feel good…what a wonderful day it has been. Anything else may be missing the point. Cheers to all 🙌
Your DOF explanation was great but if it had been done indoors in low light it could have also demonstrated the fact that the "FF advantage" disappears when more depth of field is wanted. Eg an exposure of f4 at 800 iso on MFT would require f8 at 3200 iso on FF, resulting in the same amount of noise.
I have seen a lot of disinformation about this about the f stop differences between micro four thirds and full frame and your information is correct. I knew this before listening to your post and I am pleased you are clearing up a lot of misinformation on other aspects you are talking about too that I knew was misinformation before I listened to what you had to say. I did my research because people were contradicting each other.
Very clearly set out explanation. Never heard it so well put! Thanks!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great explanation Chris and nice to see side by side comparisons 👍
Great video. Thanks a lot for making that point clear. Really impressed to see such a pearl of wisdom on youtube.
I think you could make it even better if you were making a distinction between quantity of light and intensity of light. To take your cake analogy, the intensity of light is the thickness of the icing, and that's the ISO. The quantity of light is the total weight of icing. You can put 1kg of icing on either cake, as long as you don't care about the thickness of the icing. With that said, the method to take images as similar as possible on two cameras is: use the same angle of view (apply the crop factor to the focal length), use the same aperture diameter (apply the crop factor to the f-number), use the same shutter speed, use the same exposure compensation, and use auto-ISO (otherwise, set the ISO to what it needs to be for neutral exposure, or apply the square of the crop factor to the ISO, for instance ISO 100 on the MFT and ISO 400 on FF). It seems like a minor difference with what you are doing, but if your rock was zooming by, fast, you'd see a difference in motion blur with different shutter speeds. Also, if you were shooting at night at cranking up the ISO, the image on the MFT would be a lot more noisy, for no good reason. In fact, by using the same shutter speed, and letting the ISO be what it needs to be, in addition to the same depth of field and same motion blur, the two images will also have about the same noise and same dynamic range.
Unless you take photos where you employ very narrow depth of field, micro four thirds has a lot of advantages, because you've got much less weight to carry. Comparing my Olympus 14-150 f/4-5.6 with my Canon EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6, the Olympus lens is a fraction of the size and weight, and essentially does the same job. I can carry a camera with the Olympus lens attached around all day, but I definitely couldn't with the Canon lens.
I can see how some portrait photographers want to use full frame, but for people who go out-and-about to find photographs, the smaller size and lighter weight of micro four thirds definitely gives a big edge in terms of practicality.
Chris, I've tried explaining this concept to other full-frame advocates on TH-cam. They just don't get it or refuse to believe it. I forwarded a link to your video. Maybe they will believe you!
Second point... in today's world, it remains very difficult to shrink a full frame kit to the size, weight and cost of M4/3. But now, software can be used to address the low light and bokeh limitations of M4/3 to get almost identical image quality. By opting for the smaller, lighter and less expensive M4/3 system and applying a bit of technology, it is relatively easy to get the best of both world's. The only limitation is bit depth, which is not a deal breaker for most of us.
Nice Job!
I have news for you, Sony has the A7C2 and R, it was difficult but they done it. No need for small sensors in big bodies anymore. The need to choose is over.
Sony wins handsdown with fullframe.
Oh.... they also have some ultra compact FF primes that might interest you.
@@brugj03 Right you are. So I thought I would construct the kit I use for wildlife, my common use case. Kit contains camera body (OM-1, A7Cii), Normal Lens (24-70 GMii, 12-40 Pro, both 2.8), Med. Tele (70-200 GM, 40-150 Pro, both 2.8), Long Tele (200-600 + 1.4x @ f/5.6-6.3, 100-400 @ f/5.0-6.3). I think the systems are somewhat comparable. Here is the comparison (data from DP Review for size, weight; B&H for cost)
Cost: Sony $9,850; OMS $5,200
Weight: Sony 4,569 grams; OMS 2,984 grams
Size: Sony 134 Cubic inches; OMS 100 cubic inches.
OMSystem is 53% cost, 65% weight, 75% size of the comparable Sony system. The good news is, we have options. Hope this helps. Can you construct a small Sony kit, of course. But, the larger sensor size will impact the absolute size of comparable lenses.
@@rudigerwolf9626 And the quality of high iso, depth of field an dynamic range.
Not to mention the insanely good ai AF which spots wildlife before you do.
There is also no need to pack that many crazy large zooms with sony, almost always one lens will do it.
Keeping things in balance greatly reduces weight and costs anyway.
You can even keep it smaller by using the insane sensor of the R and crop in with a much smaller and cheaper lens.
@@brugj03 I get it. You don’t like M4/3. No worries. Enjoy your Sony gear!
@@rudigerwolf9626 I do like m4/3, but i hate the frustrated take on FF vs M43 it`s ridiculous, because there tools for a different job.
I have Sony FF because of the magnificent wide angle lenses and FF.
Every job it`s tool, i say.
great vid man... even though i'm rather fed up with all the explanations and arguments, this was a pleasure to watch... I personally stand on the mft side but I see no benefit in endless comparisons... you are either a good... skilfull photographer or you are not... simple as that...
Brilliant stuff Chris!
I would buy you a beer for addressing this if I could! I'm amazed at how many people claim to "know" how it works but don't understand photography physics nor are willing to test it, they just go off of what they've seen online. Something really interesting is a recent forum thread over on DPReview called "Micro Four Thirds for high depth of field" (can't link in YT comments... /sigh). This is not my post, and I'm still researching it, so grain of salt and all the other usual disclaimers... But, it goes over how diffraction impacts image quality at specific F-stops by specific Sony ff and Pany m43 sensors... Their testing shows that an A7R5 @ f16 resolves about the same as a G9ii at f8, due to diffraction! For those that want more depth of field, for things like landscapes, I found this very interesting. But, of course, if at the same f-stop, the higher res sensor is better, but not as much as we might think at F16. I need to research this more.
I've found with my MFT lenses that diffraction starts to creep in slightly sooner in terms of stopping down than it does with the FF lenses.
@@ChrisBaitsonPhoto yeah, I usually try to keep it below f11 (usually f4-8 is what I’ve found as the sweet spot for most of my zooms) and use NDs instead of stopping down to much, but I have a few shot at f16+ that aren’t too bad considering.
You had me all the way up to the icing on the cake …😂 nice one. I’ll just have to keep watching a few times.
Just got into micro four thirds so bit of learning curve, but a lot of Advantages .
Once you nail it down it’s pretty simple. Hope the video helped.
There are advantages and disadvantages to every system, but there is also a lot of internet-lore out there that is complete non-sense. This was a great debunking video for one of those common misconceptions.
An excellent explanation, Chris! I use an OM-5 and some zooms and a few primes as well.
It is a rabbit hole. A few years back when I got my A7R I decided to test it against the Panasonic GX8 I owned at the same time. On the A7R I shot with the Leica Summicron 40mmf2 and the GX8 a Panasonic 20mmf1.7 (the latter because it is a complete rip-off by Panasonic of a summicron design). What I discovered at the 100% RAW pixel level was no difference in the quality of the pixels. It was just that the A7R had more of them. There were subtle differences when cropped for social media use but these appeared to me to be the lens signatures and not the sensors. Long story short, especially as the early selection of Sony lenses was actually pretty poor, I sold the A7R and just concentrated on m43rds. And a lot of that was for professional and not personal purposes.
Great explanation Chris. One scenario that would, if I'm not mistaken, disagree with your closing statement is if I shot a Full frame 50mm 1.2 and tried to get equivalent M4/3 shot which would have to be shot on a 25mm sub F 1.0 lens, which Im not sure is available, If I am understating the physics correctly .
The Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 would have you back.
@@ChrisBaitsonPhoto yeah, but then we're not talking native (perhaps pro) lenses anymore. And probably also MF only. Not saying they are bad or the system is bad (I use m43 myself), but I agree with the comment above that it would be good to also showcase the limits, eg., both lenses at f1.8. You will have the shallower DoF on FF. Whether that's an advantage or disadvantage completely depends on what you want to use it for. 🙂
I found that even for portraits (which is the pro-claimed FF playing field), less shallow DoF can be a real advantage: Whenever there is more than one person in the frame and they are not perfectly lined up in terms of distance from camera, you cannot use FF (or even m43) wide open anymore without having one of the faces blurred.
@@jonastruemper637 Try to find 1000/5.6 or 1200/6.3 for ful format. Btw you can adapt almost any lens to mft camera but not to full a format camera.
@@richardfink7666 no doubt, there are some lenses that are hard-to-impossible to get on FF as well. 🙂 I am not trying to imply that FF is better. One might say that FF has some characteristics on the wide end of the focal length spectrum that hard to get for m43 - while m43 has some unique characteristics on the long end. Hope that makes sense. 🙂
@@jonastruemper637 Hits the nail on the head!
I have M43 and FF. Your explanation is of course correct you can get the two systems to have the same results - most of the time. The exceptions are you can't get the M43 25mm to have the same depth of field as the FF does at f/1.8 because you'd need to set it to f/1-ish and can't do that. The other is when you are not doing landscape on a tripod and shutter speed actually makes a difference to the image.
I am so glad you are showing us rather than just talking! I do get it, but then I get confused half way through aha
nice comparison. It would be nice if this comparison could also be made under difficult lighting conditions.
I can do that.
Fantastic content.
Much appreciated!
Wonderful video, but would we see image quality differences in picture print outs?
Say a 24x36 print from a m4/3 vs say a Z6iii FF?
The Z6iii only has an extra 4Mpx over the E-M1 Mark ii. So the question then becomes viewing distance. In your example very little difference would be noticed. Print sizes are dependant on megapixels and not sensor size.
My Olympus E-M1 Mark ii produces more resolution than a Canon 1Dx.
You can print a billboard with a photo from an iPhone. Sensor size and prints don’t really affect each other.
@@ChrisBaitsonPhoto
That’s super helpful.
Appreciate that!
When using em1 mk2 what focus point do you use for landscape
I use the focus point that looks like a crosshair.
You are an excellent teacher.
Wow, thank you!
FF is a logical choice for folks like me who still use with 35mm film: different bodies, but still the same lenses.
If you are a strictly digital shooter, perhaps in general just pick APSC or MFT because they are a smaller systems (smaller image sensor leads to smaller lens)
1:22 what’s the Olympus model you’re holding here?
Great comparison. It would be nice to see this same comparison at dusk. It is also worth mentioning that sensor size plays an indirect role in depth of view specifically in regards to lens availability. An f1.1 lens on a full frame camera would require an f0.75 lens in micro 4/3rds at the same field of view to achieve the same depth of field. However, as a landscape photographer, this rarely matters but does explain why there are not many portrait photographers using m4/3rds cameras professionally.
lol.. 45 mm f1.2 is bad lens? you want to have only eye in focus? It's 90 mm f2.4, perfect for portraits.. or 75m f1.8 which is 150 mm f3.6.
You can't achive 35 mm f1.4 on M43, obviously.. but you can get 35 mm f2.4.
@@pentagramyt417 I never said any lens was a bad lens. The 45mm f1.2 is a fantastic lens. The 45mm f1.8 is also a fantastic lens and stays in my camera bag wherever I go. You made my point in your response though in the last sentence. 35mm f1.4 is not achievable in m4/3. If you follow a lot of full frame street photography, they shoot wide open on a 35mm or 50mm lens. You just have to be more creative on m4/3rds to get similar results.
@@thejonc799 Well.. I've shot one of my best street autumn photo close up of a leaf on the street in the background, perfectly blurred with basic 150$ sony apsc kit lens (I went that day just for fun with this kit, probably second time in my life) and sho stunning image with extremly shallow dof at 50 mm f8 which is 75 mm f/12.0 (!). So taking this into consideration, if you want to make it work, you have to know that the subject needs to be closer than on the fullframe, not further, as the depth of field will just increase. Let's say a human is walking 8 meters in front of you at your 35 mm f1.4 fullframe lens, if you use 17 mm f1.2 olympus lens, your subject has to be ~3-4 meters in front of you to get great depth of field. It's achiveable but it will be different as it will fill the frame more. Technically it will be different image, but with shallow DoF too.
@@pentagramyt417 yep, that's all I was saying. You just have to be more creative with m4/3rds to get the desired effect if that is the effect you desire. Not taking away from anyone's experience with m4/3, just stating that for that particular genre, it is easier to achieve with the full frame options of lenses. To be clear, I LOVE my EM1.2 and the only reason I am considering a full frame is for night photography and astro. And for that I am looking at an old Canon 6d mark 1. I don't need full frame for any other genre of photography that I shoot and have been shooting m4/3 since they came out in 2012.
I have both systems. A nikon Z full frame with heavy lenses and an OM-5 with not so heavy lenses. My go-to cam is the OM-5. It's way more fun to shoot and is good enough for 90% of the things I shoot. My Nikon Z I only use when I require superb low light performance (like shooting my toddler in a low light setting with high shutter speed). Or when I'm shooting background-obliterated portraits.
Same here. Almost thinking to sell my Z7 but I like the colours and the Eye auto focus is more reliable…
But when travelling I take either my Em5iii or EM1iii
Adding light will always produce better photo than raising the ISO, regardless of system. I use full frame and I still use flashes, or in my hope I just put more light in the rooms, that I can turn on only when I photograph.
@@d3xmeister can't really full blast my living room with strobes or serious lights. my wife would kill me :P
@@recreationalplutonium I did it for years for 2 kids and never had an issue. Maybe don't shoot 100 photos per minute :)) I even used point and shoots and slave flashes and got photos inside as good as daylight. But what you can also do, which I did succesfully in my parents house, is put more lights. I exchanged the 2 bulb thingy with a 5 bulb one, replaced the bulbs with more powerful ones put a light switch that can turn those on and off separately. This way I managed to do awesome photos with ISO 400 film and no flash. You can't except everything to be fixed by the camera. Again, lower ISO and more/better light will always result in a much better photos, it doesn't matter what camera you use
@@d3xmeister I guess you're just better than me.
f Stop it please😂😂 Gotta admit I hesitated seeing the title. I think you nailed it with a clear explanation and examples👍👍
😁
Thanks for this. Is there more fine detail in the full frame image. I would love to know as no one will answer this from similar comparisons I have seen.
No, in un confronto reale, sia su un monitor che vagliando grandissime stampe, due fotografi professionisti italiani hanno rilevato che reali differenze non esistevano od erano davvero minime.
Il comune osservatore comunque non nota nulla.
Hanno confrontato il micro 4/3, l'aps, full frame e persino il super full frame Fuji GX.
Not if the M43 lens is sharper.
The only difference is the bokeh and ability to lift shadows but unless you know what the original image looked like you wouldn't be any wiser.
Great explanation.
Excellent explanaton of the aperture and focal length "issues" I would, however, like to see a video and your views about the much more critical and widely discussed issue of FF vs M4/3 low light capability and subsequent noise. I use APSC and there is a difference here, but how does this compare?
Great vid
thanks
I hesitate to mention this but there is another factor in depth of field, which is how precisely an image needs to be focussed to be judged in focus. This is the so called "circle of confusion". For a 20 megapixel M43 sensor, an image must be more precisely focussed than an FF 20 megapixel sensor, because the pixels are a quarter the size. So all other things being equal - aperture and focal length - a M43 sensor will have shallower depth of field than a FF one. I am not sure how the scale of that effect, which opposes the effect of the shorter focal lengths for equivalent field of view, works out quantitatively.
Incide poco.
In pratica la riduzione della profondità di campo dovuto al diverso circolo di confusione (a parità di grandezza di stampa finale) si riduce poco o nulla, rispetto al grande aumento che si ottiene con la riduzione della lunghezza focale effettiva.
Quindi cosa incide il più piccolo circolo di confusione tra le diverse grandezze dei sensori?
Le ottiche progettate per il micro 4/3 devono avere una ben maggiore risoluzione per avere risultati paragonabili con le ottiche disegnate per il full-frame.
Ovviamente a parità di stampa.
Quindi vale l'assunto: investire più sulla qualità degli obiettivi che correre sulle leggere migliorie dei corpi macchina, che ormai hanno da anni raggiunto alte qualità.
Per me, m raccomando.
Two years ago I swapped my Olympus cameras (2) and lenses (6)for a Nikon Z7II and 3 lenses. I was under the misapprehension that I had got a better camera and that I would get better pictures. My Nikon images were more detailed, 46mps v 20mps, but the images were essentially identical. I also developed stronger arm muscles as the weight of the Nikon setup was at least double that of the Olympus.
I really regretted the change and have since reverted to an OM5 with 12-40 f/4, both brand new. The OM5 is a tad small for my hands so I am now considering swapping it for an OMI Mk III which has the focussing joystick with a 12-40 f/2.8.
My point is this; the Olympus images are just as good as the Nikon in terms of artistic quality. As I was watching your latest diatribe on full frame v. MFT I realised what a twat I've been.
I thankfully kept my Olympus film cameras and am enjoying using them as much as the DSLRs.
I enjoy your channel very much Chris. Your manner of presentation resonates with me and your location provides a welcome contrast to the bucolic Suffolk countryside where I live. I have without success tried to see whether you run courses. Do you have a website? PLEASE keep up the good work
-Your conclusion is spot on, but something's not clear to me from your explanation-at --7:24-- you say "both of these let in the same amount of light" but at --7:45-- you say "f/4 on this lens is letting in four times the light of this (the other) lens." What do you mean, exactly?-
Edit: So I rewatched your video, and I understand you were talking first in terms of the exposure value and the next time in terms of amount of light, the physical thing.
Care for a thought experiment?
What if we take two 50mm f1.8 lenses, one m43 and the other FF, don't they gather the same amount of light? Is the amount of light that's gathered (the physical thing) dependent on sensor size or the aperture of the lens? Imagine this-think in a purely physical, intuitive sense-you have these two lenses mounted on both the cameras, and you have all the settings set the same, including ISO. You close the shutter at say 1/100th of a second. Snap! Then the m43 sensor is gathering more light per inch of the sensor than the full frame sensor, right? 👀So shouldn't ISO performance be better on m43? (if focal length is same on both, ie. 50mm on both)
They let through the light of f4 for their respective formats. Of course the FF lens has to let in 4x the light but aperture for aperture they let in the light of that aperture.
@@ChrisBaitsonPhoto Gotcha, thanks! Did you get a chance to see my edited comment?
in bright light, both full frame and micro four thirds would like about the same after adjusting for the aperture difference. However, in dim light to low light, you will find that full frame pulls way ahead. For sports in dim lighting, full frame pulls further ahead in terms of noise. For protrait photography where you want narrow depth of field, then full frame also pulls ahead. If that protrait was captured at F1.2 full frame, it will require F0.6 on micro four thirds. No micro four thirds lens have F0.6, so this is impossible for micro four thirds. It all depends on the scenarios which you shoot.
Con il Metabones 0,64x ed il mio Zuiko Om 55mm f:1,2 ottengo un reale 35mm f:0,8... che uso su una Panasonic G9.
Ho anche uno zoomTamron 28-75mm f:2,8 che diventa un versatile 18-48mm f:1,8.
But with too fast a lens you are going to end up with just a nose in focus with full frame.
Just use a longer lens from further away. Ok if you compare you can see a difference but there are ways to get good seperation.
Not having such a shallow dof can be advantage in some ways.
Interesting, but have to see it again
Different tools dor different jobs. If i was a pro wedding and event photographer i would go with a expensive pro level FF setup. But im not, im a hobbyist that likes hiking and walking everywhere in every type of weather (dont even own a car lol) and i mostly upload to Instagram. In that case, the OM-5 is perfect for me. Its weathersealed, good ibis, light etc. I can pack my rucksack with my camera, 12-45mm, 20mm, 40-150mm and if i want my 300mm and its still comfortable and light enough for food and water. Also i dont know many FF cameras i can get for 1000€ new with a lens like the 12-45 that have something like starry sky AF, live ND, full weather sealing etc. Thats like what? At least 2000-3000€ in a full frame camera? Good enough for me despite the drawbacks. Also with modern AI denoising its not even a huge problem with ISO noise.
Fascinating
Chris let me tell you with much appreciation that there is a way- the only way- to have the exact same result (in terms of light, field of view and compression) between the two systems.
This is the way: we set side by side m4/3 and ff. Let's say we have m4/3 with 50mm lens f1.8, s1/500, iso 200. Next to it we need the ff with 50mm lens at f1.8, s1/500 and iso200. Then in post production we have to crop the ff photo 2x resulting in a 4 times smaller photo. Now we have exactly the same result. Moreover if the ff has 4x mp than the m4/3 for example a 64mp vs a 16mp sensor then in the final result we also have the same pixel density.
The biggest misconception in photography is that there are equivalencies between different systems, but there are not. Because of the crop factor, smaller sensors try to compensate for the same angle of view with bigger sensors using wider angle lenses. And this will always always results in different depth of field. As already mentioned f1.8 will always be f1.8 and 50mm will always be 50mm no matter what the sensor size is. They are characteristics asigned to lenses by their physical dimensions.
It would be very reliefing for photographers if we stopped arguing for equivalencies. Different systems are just different windows to view through and capture/create images.
I agree with everything you said. I made the video due to previous comments from folks telling me that my chosen format cannot do what theirs can, when quite frankly it can.
Very simple situation, but hugely over-complicated by retailers who led TH-camrs by their noses.
Do you need a brand new Range Rover or a Toyota Prius or a tiny Japanese 800cc K-car or an old junk American V8 truck?
There is no definite answer because it depends on what you wanna use that vehicle for.
We would all love a new Range Rover. But its actually not necessary for most of us.
The Prius is more practical for the masses, but most consumers would be ashamed of being seen owning one as they wont be seen as being car lovers.
A tiny Japanese Kei Car is superbly sensible for many, but again…it cannot help you to show off and appear knowledgeable and authoritative.
Many Americans would insist on using huge trucks in the city powered by huge old junk obsolete fuel-guzzling V8s. Again, they need to prove something.
So, does a consumer need FF or M4/3?
Dont be surprised, most consumers really need only a flagship smartphone’s camera + a few good apps.
There is no weight benefits for using M43. When you start carry FF pack you'll exercise a lot and loose some weight, that'll compensate weight difference between kits 🤣
Please, not another unfair debate. I am an OM System user coming from the ff Canon 5DMKII(welll, an old DSLR) and after a few years I just realize that the M4/3 system is just a tool fun to use and it is no doubt at all. You all talk about the size and portability but believe me the OM1 paired with a 300 mm f4 and a MC14 it’s not just easy to carry around in fact is a bit heavy than the R5 with a 100-500 zoom lens. Image quality, it’s just the last one on the table cameras on Dynamic range. Shooting at 800 ISO the image has a lot of noise, now you all saying “well the DXO, topaz bla bla bla” are excellent options to remove the noise but the results are just not the best one IMHO, they looks kinda weird, not very natural, indeed. Others photographer talk about the 300 mm, “wow, such an amazing and super sharp it is” and you have a 600 mm, amazing”. Yes, probably but even so, the DOF is an effective f8 and all the reach you gain with the crop sensor is actually for nothing because you need to get closer to your subject to achieve those “creamy and soft backgrounds” if you like them, of course. The m4/3 system is just a “super bright day photographic tool” above 800 ISO is just a cheap mobile phone style image, I think. The cost, it’s not cheap at all, the 300 mm is more than 2.200€, the 150-400/7.000€ that’s insane, am I right ? 20 mpx on 2024? 12 bits raw? please….
Best wishes from Spain,
Remus
If you're at 800 iso on MFT, you'd need to be at 3200 iso on FF to get the same depth of field as you'd have to close the aperture 2 stops. So there's often no advantage from using FF at all.
People should learn that term "Full Frame" is only usable when 35 mm sensor is compared to APS-C sensor.
There are three major formats.
1) Large Format. That is all from 4x5" to 10x12" film/sensor. Using sheet films.
2) Medium Format. That is from 6x4,5 cm all the way to 6x17. Practically all using 120/220 roll films.
3) Small Format. That is everything from microfilm all the way up to 35 mm film.
The term "Full Frame" didn't exist before 1959. That was the year when Olympus released PEN camera, that was first Half-Frame camera!
The term "Half-Frame" comes from the PEN using same 135 film rolls as all the other 135 film cameras, but instead exposure being 36x24 mm, it was 18x24 mm. It is literally HALF the frame size what 35 mm cameras exposed.
On that day forward, the comparison between PEN and other SLR that used same 135 film rolls, was done by "Half-Frame" and "Full-Frame". The Small Format debated about it, as Medium Format user weren't arguing that 6x4,5 wasn't "Medium Format" and compared to 6x9 cm that was suppose to be "Real Medium Format".
Same is with Half-Frame and Full-Frame cameras, both use same 135 film rolls, exposure dimensions were just different.
And today the closest for Half-Frame is APS-C.
The typical APS-C sensor dimensions are 23.5 × 15.6 mm. Just tiny tiny bit smaller than PEN Half-Frame was.
But regardless all that, the 35 mm sensor is today still only a Small Format. It belongs to same Small Format category as does APS-C, and 4/3" and 1" and everything else.
There is nothing "Full" in the 35 mm sensor.
As the "Full Frame" means only that the sensor will be covering lenses image circle "fully" by the design.
And 4/3 system lenses project fully on 4/3" sensor, as does m4/3 lenses as well on 4/3" sensor.
In same spirit, the 4/3" is "Full Frame" as much as 35 mm sensor is.
But the APS-C is "Half-Frame" when compared to 35 mm sensor, as you can have APS-C lenses and 35 mm lenses, and other will project large image circle, where other just smaller and it doesn't cover 35 mm sensor fully.
The 4/3 or m4/3 lenses were never designed to be used with 35 mm sensor, nor with APS-C sensor. It is completely, totally new format and system that Olympus designed with KODAK.
It is based to 110 format, that everyone knows is not 135 format, nor 120/220 format.
Great explanation, but the problem is, that you need f/0.9 on MFT to get the same look as f/1.8 on FF. And f/0.9 on MFT is really hard to find....
Venus Laowa and TTArtisan make several f0.95 lenses each. There are plenty out there to chose from. Brightin Star also make a bunch too.
Voigtlander makes a wonderful manual focus 42mm f0.95 MFT lens!
What “look” are you after? It is usually possible to change to a longer focal length and recompose, if you really want a narrow DOF.
If it’s light-gathering that is the limitation, then a larger sensor (of the same generation) will do better. Unless you are in a situation where you can stack frames, such as with many newer mFT cameras.
So it really comes down to different solutions.
@@boggisthecat By look I meant the depth of field. For me it is not a solution to change from 50mm to 100mm (FF), because that gives a completely different message in street photography. So it's always a compromise. That's all I wanted to say.
It's also a compromise to have to carry full frame lenses. MFT would be the ideal size for most people. If only they knew it!
Does this comparison even matter ? Not really.
Yes because people need all the facts before purchasing an expensive item like a camera.
take a chill pill, bro. and move the prompter closer to the camera
Icing on cakes and green hats…. I’m good. 👍
Green is the best colour for a hat! And every cake needs icing. It’s good 👍🏻
What about the 12-100mm f/4 IS Pro? The Sync IS with it would allow you to ditch the tripod for most situations, but also has more than double the extra reach. Since you do mainly landscapes, I can't image shooting f/4 over f/2.8 would be a huge loss for you. Yes, the lens is bigger and heavier, but it really is the holy grail of the single lens for everything.... and it's veeeeeery sharp.
The m4/3 system with 12-100 mm doesn't benefit from the Sync-S for most situations.
Since the E-M5 and E-M1 (2012 and 2013) the IBIS has been so great that 100-150 mm has been tripod-free from before sunrise to after sunset. You get 1" handheld exposures with > 80% success rate if you have better than average hand steadiness. And when I say "handheld", I mean that person stands on two feet, and has camera on eyebrown and no support whatsoever.
The f/4 is not problem, as you can do above mentioned shooting with f/1.8 at ISO 200 and 1.5" shutter speed. Make small compromise in those, and you get something like 2.3 stops (1.8 -> 4) with ISO raise from 200 to 1250. And that is negligent image quality impact since OM-D (E-M5 in 2012).
The focal length is key thing in landscape, 40 mm is often too wide. What makes 12-40 mm annoying to carry alone. Going alone 40-150 mm f/2.8 PRO is annoying as sometimes you want that 12-25 mm range.
And that has made 8-25 mm + 12-100 mm be excellent f/4 couple. As you have all from 8 mm all the way to 100 mm.