@9:15 I’m not sure you’re correct about aperture. Yes, F2.8 on a 2x crop gives you the depth of field of 5.6 equivalent. But you still get the same light to the sensor as 2.8.
@@video-carl In other words you get the same light, but the image circle on a FF lens is bigger than a m4/3 lens. People do not understand when you say 4x more light, they think its 4 times brighter, which its not, its just 4 times bigger image circle thats output at the back of the lens.
@@SMGJohn that's right; at the same focal length a ff sensor will collect 4x more light across a 4x bigger image; same light at any spot. m43 will collect ¼ of the light but across ¼ of the image size of ff.
You hit the nail on the head. I spend all year wondering if I need full frame, one week in Ogwen Valley and I’m like “nope” m43 make sense when you walk with your camera gear. Love the channel mate.
- Huge DOF(awesome for streets and landscape) - Possibly best battery capacity. The battery on my OM1 mrk II lasts for days. - Price for what you get. Bought my OM1 mrk II used for 450usd. Beat the one if you can! - Len's possibilities. Small primes for peanut money. - Build quality. Both Olympus and Panasonic.
I have a lumix gx80 with the 12-60 and 45-150 which covers all i need as a walk about camera and it fits in a very small sling bag and the quality of the images are very good when edited in affinity photo
Portability is the main attraction of Micro four thirds, not only for climbing mountains, but any form of trekking and camping when we tend to carry backpacks with all sorts of gear leaving little room for large cameras and lenses. Offering quality and flexibility far superior to compact point and shoot cameras with little gain in size and weight.
I left full frame for MFT a year ago. My main body is the Panasonic G9, the first version. From 2017. It offers so much more than the Z5 I had. Same price, so much better. Seriously, people put way too much emphasis on the sensor size.
I agree with you. I've had a G9 since 2018. Still so feature packed and well built. I have also a G9ii bought at a $500 trade in bonus discount last January. I get the FF itch every so often but in good light no more is needed.
Recently purchased the G9ii and so far no complaints. I think what isn't mentioned often enough is the handling. Most intuitive and fun camera I have ever used (also love the LUT features) And after a recent trip to Amsterdam.... That humidity and heat was no joke.
I thought f2.8 was equivalent to full frame in terms of light gathering for the sensor size but it’s like 5.6 on full frame in terms of dof and bokeh? Obviously full frame have better higher iso capabilities too so it’s does lean heavily towards ff for lower light
Also the dynamic range is more about pixel pitch/photosites than just pixel size. You can stuff a lot of very small pixels into the same space as a few large pixels without reducing the dynamic range overall. The larger pixels capture more light on a per pixel basis but there are many more of the smaller pixels - which is why the surface area is the key here. I.e. A 61 mp FF sensor will have the same pixels as a 26mm APSC sensor but will have better dynamic range than the APSC sensor and will have as good dynamic range as a 24mp FF sensor with much larger pixels. Noise is the issue with small pixels.
I JUST bought a new (to me) APSC DSLR, I did not need to see this video right now haha. Love it though, great video per usual :) Also, that first pic of the path was amazing.
@@thecinemafox5531 Agree....in between FF and MFT - still benefit the smaller and easier to carry gear than FF, and wth the newer flagship MFT there is not much difference...if any... in body size
Enjoyed that video, thanks. I've used mostly M43 for 11 years. I've tried Fuji twice and Canon FF but always moved back. You mentioned the compromises but they are all remediable. As you say, bracket for dynamic range (or use the built in ND grad in the latest OMD body), use one of the noise reduction software packages for higher iso noise, etc etc. Being able to carry a body and zooms from 24-800 equivalent in a shoulder bag is superb for an outdoor photographer who's out all day. Oh, and as you mentioned, I haven't needed to use a tripod for months.
I use MFT since 2013 and i love it! Bought it, because i have small hands and the lower weight. The rest of my equipment is heavy enough to carry around😂, i use a 12-60 lens, a 12 wideangle and a 45-200 telezoom from Panasonic lumix.
My goto landscape/general setup is currently the G9ii with the 3 PL F/2.8-4 zooms + the 1.4TC. It's been great for landscape and the IQ is definitely a step up from my og G9. What I'm really hoping for next from m43 is a good updated small/medium sized body (no, the OM5 rebadging doesn't count). I still use my GX8 and GM1 and honestly like them more than the G9ii, except when IQ matters, and when using the 50-200.
I'm here in Tasmania, so I understand how a 25~30deg day can be uncomfortable. Not only am I acclimatised to lower temps (it's 12 right now ands I'm inside in a singlet), the heat produced at lower temps in higher and lower latitudes is entirely different. I understand it as being largely to do with the much thinner atmospheric protection. Because, like the oceans which heap up at the equator due to centrifugal force, so does the atmosphere. We are both at about 30% of equatorial atmospheric cover, so more direct sunlight and uv etc. You're going to be the owner of a 4/3 camera is my prediction. Henry Turner has settled on it too because he does a lot of mountains. Seems like a real solution for hiking to me.
@@formermpc10Completely disagree, I have owned and loved all of the EM1 series cameras and yes they are exceptional gear but the OM1 and mkii are infinitely superior to all of them, better processor, EVF, sensor, autofocus, stabilisation plus a raft of extra features that the EM1’s simply can’t compete with. On top of that the menu system is a massive improvement which ensures that the OM1’s are far more user friendly to boot!
Hmm, yeah I think you are wrong about apertures. A M43 lens with an aperture of f/2.8 will, for any given scene, have the same shutter speed and ISO as a full frame f/2.8. It will have a greater depth of field, but for landscape and most wildlife that’s an advantage! If you liked the LUMIX try an Om Systems Om-1 - a properly pro camera in a package smaller than a Nikon Z6, for example. Re:blurry backgrounds, yes you need to start using f/1.8 or f/1.4 lenses to get a large effect, but while on FF f/1.4 lenses are large heavy and expensive, on M43 they are small light and cheap! I run with both and use M43 for travel and concerts where size and weight are the driving factors. You can assemble a second hand body and a full set of lenses for about the same as a decent single zoom for FF.
I am racking my brain here. I don’t shoot video and I feel I just bought the z6iii wasting my money and should have kept my and maybe have kept my OM-1 with the 40-150, 12-40. I now have the NIKKOR 180-600, 24-120, and the 105. I just felt I was missing something with my Micro4/3. All of my pictures seemed soft when comparing to FF pictures. I do shoot wildlife, I shoot landscape, and I do shoot macro. so I’m your honest opinion, should I trade my z6iii back to the OM-1? Or just keep the Z6iii and get used to it? I’m no professional, but I do love to print and I do love to post my pictures. Help me make up my mind
I went from APS-C to full frame to MFT. I bought my first MFT camera in 2015 but I never stopped using full frame. I absolutely love my OM System/Olympus kit and it excels in long focal lengths and light weight, but it does have its drawbacks. They are generally noisier and really not great in low light. It's not terrible, but it can't compare with a full frame camera, and I do a lot of blue hour photography. I use the MFT kit for travel and the full frame kit for local shoots, which does include cityscapes, landscapes, and other commercial type of shoots. I think that's a good split of duties, as it were, doing what each camera system does best. I don't foresee giving up either system anytime soon. In fact, I just upgraded from a DSLR to a mirrorless full frame. I do think that MFT has kind of reached its megapixel limits, which is why the Olympus/OM System top-end cameras have been stuck at 20mp for years. The megapixel count is not important for its own sake, but it does give some leeway for cropping when you can't physically move closer to the subject.
Yeah, point 1 is pretty valid, I took a full frame 5D mark II backpacking in British Columbia with a plastic fantastic and I almost wish I took my 80D or Rebel SL2 (if I still had it). 50mm f/1.8 isn't a large lens but the body is still heavy no matter how you look at it
You raise some valid points for using m43. It is a popular format for landscape photographers. I could easily see choosing it for its compact form factor.
If you stick with MFT may I suggest that you get a Panasonic 200mm Prime lens. It is astonishingly pin-sharp at f2.8. I got mine second hand from MPB. All my lenses are Panasonic like my camera because I'm too scared to buy any Olympus glass because I don't know if it will play nicely with my Panasonic bodies. However I do have my beady eye on an Olympus 300mm Prime lens, but I won't get one till somebody can let me know if the lens and body will work together.
Fun fact, crop sensor lenses needs to be much sharper and use higher quality glass then full frame lenses which can use lower quality lenses but they also need to be bigger, so why are full frame lenses more expensive? Well its like you said, its just more material overall needed and of course, more glass. But full frame lenses are ironically, less sharp then crop sensor glass is, a lot of people say FF glass is superior, have no idea what they are on about, its quite the opposite.
About once a year I'll toy with the idea of getting an OM-1. I'll also consider getting an XT-5. But, I always find enough reasons not to buy into an Olympus or Fuji system. My full frame cameras and lenses are Sony. But, I wanted a smaller and lighter system for travel. So, I currently use an A7CR with a 16-35 GM II, a 50mm 1.4 GM, and 70-200 G II. Works for me.
@@formermpc10 If someone else wants to shoot Olympus, Fuji, or any other brand, who am I to disagree? Use whatever works for you. As for me, I'm sticking with, Sony,
I want to point out, regarding the aperture, you're able to get lenses with more light for MFT than you are for full frame. That's really the only point of comparison between MFT lenses and full frame lenses.
This is also why I like Canon's APS-C mirrorless. I have a 1.6 crop factor. Not as much weight savings as M43 for lenses, but still significant. I also get better depth of field for landscape than full-frame. The Lumix G95 has my interest. I bit smaller than the G9.
Unfortunately canon don't support their APSC cameras with quality APSC lenses. For them, APSC is just a gateway drug into their FF cameras so APSC is an afterthought
Canon APS-C requires use of third party lenses and while Sigma primes for Canon are small and really good, every other brand makes huge lenses, in fact only Sony makes small compact APS-C lenses, are they are not as good as Leica or Olympus on micro 4/3 system, mark my word on that, way more distortions, flaring issues and overall not as sharp or contrasty. Also Sony uses this silly rangefinder body style which I am not a huge fan of, but you might be, its worth a checkout.
FWTW An over looked Panasonic lens is the 35-100 4-5.6. A tiny lens lens which full frame is an 70-200 granted its not a 2.8, Its also not in that price range can be had £200 Good on MPB. Used it few weeks ago at a graduation for portraits shots.
I bought the Olympus EM-5mkII back when it was new. Aside from the horrible user interface it’s a great camera, the IBIS is amazing and it takes fantastic pictures, probably more so now that there are so many great post processing option’s available usuch as DxO PureRaw4 or Topaz AI. My mistake was to buy it with the Oly 12-40 f2.8 pro lens. Like you, I carried it on my backpack strap but it was too unwieldy for me. Talking of carrying, what method do you use? That looks like an Osprey (Stratos?) pack but is that a waist bag too? I’ve thought about doing that but the hip straps on my Osprey have storage pockets that get in the way.
I sold a sony A7R4 sony to buy an olympus OM-1. The sony was massive overkill that gave me nothing over the olympus. BUT a s l o w computer. I print 30x40 inch with the oly.
I've a gx9 and G9. I rarely use my full frame and apsc Nikons any more or tripod for that matter, except to keep the composition from moving The G9ii is tempting but I'm not into birding etc so I can't really justify the upgrade
unfortunately i still got to take my 2 FF + tripods(and big lenses) up every mountain I go ...koz I shoot lot of low light stuff The more you do it the more you get in shape, the more you know how to use the straps on your backpack for additional comfort, and you tend to invest in the best backpack out there too(for comfort, back and shoulders) it's a different game BUT yes would love to switch to lighter weights ....when it happens it happens i guess
When you stated that the micro 4/3 on a 2.8 let's in less like than a full frame camera that is not exactly correct, because a 4/3 body has a 2x crop factor tw0 thins happen , a 12mm less gives you a angle of view as a 24 mm full frame cameras and the depth of field is equivalent on a 2.8 lens to 5.6, but the exposure of a2.8 lens is not affected, dynamic range is affected due to the Eastern smaller sensor and pixel density as far as camera body size goes Olympus bodies tend to be smaller than the new Panasonic G9 mkII, I Have the Panasonic S5 MKII and by full frame camera is not a big camera but for 4/3 it is on the large side as was the Panasonic G9 . But smaller camera bodies have a drawback, the buttons and dials are smaller and closer together and you have a smaller grip and that makes it harder with large lens. I have many camera systems in my collection 0f cameras that cover full frame, APSC and Micro 4/3 and I enjoy using them all but if I would choose one system from general photography I would go with APSC.
The display media trail cameras' DR by a long shot. Most prints can't display over 6-7 stops. Most displays can't display over 8 stops. The best HDR displays can just about display 10-11 stops.
Your eyes adjust dynamic range all the time, the real DR of the human eye is actually more like 6 to 8 stops, but your eyes adjust in such an Incredible quick time, also the ISO performance of a human eye is something like 400 LOL, but our brains are just excellent at noise reduction. Our eyes are quite flawed overall, but our brains are fantastic computers that make a good image, thats not to say smartphones can do the same, obviously there is a limitation of physics a smaller sensors cannot overcome, only a big sensor can overcome, but a 1-inch sensor with appropriate software, could theoretically achieve a perfect human vision.
How high does the humidity get over there? I live in the middle of the USA, and our weather is all over the place, I think we get just about everything here lol
I just looked up the hottest day here last summer( I remember how hot it was because we went to an air show) and it was 40.5 C with a heat index of about 53 C. It was BRUTAL! I got some good shots or the planes, though!
We're an island remember, so humidity in the British Isles is always well above 50%. Usually above 60%, often as high as 90%. So our moderate hot feels baking, and our moderate cold feels freezing.
@@robertmills4591 Yeah, we get high humidity here sometimes, too, but also really dry periods, it just depends on the year. Based on a 'heat index calculator' I found, it seems that humidity was only around 45% last summer, but with an actual air temp of 40.5 C, that's PLENTY hot lol Also, I think the hottest weather I've ever personally been in was about 47 C, but I don't know what the heat index/humidity was
In my experience in mountain hikes, it is also easier to get a sunburn. May not even seem hot, perhaps less atmosphere to block the rays?? Hope you have a hat somewhere!
I love everything about M43 except the aperture. With wildlife, I need as much light as I can get and I can only decrease shutter speed so much before the animal is blurry from movement. If someone is going to solve this, my money is on Olympus!
You need F4 or F2.8 lenses which are typically better built and cheaper than FF F5.6 lenses. If you want faster than that on FF then prepare to sell your brand new car!
Well I mean you are in luck, Olympus 75mm F1.8 which has a field of view of 150mm in full frame terms. There is nothing longer at that speed to my knowledge, you could slap a 135mm F2 Canon lens I suppose, wont be as sharp though!
What is the problem with aperture? The doubling effect is just depth of field not light gathering. An f/4 mFT long telephoto will let you set same shutter speed and iSO as an f/4 full frame.
@@StuartAnderton You do not double aperture, the aperture is the same, the only thing that changes in a lens for crop sensor is the field of view. 25mm m4/3 lens will have same field of view as a 50mm lens of a full frame, but the same bokeh as a 25mm full frame lens.
@@SMGJohn If you say a 25mm M43 lens is the equivalent of a 50mm FF lens, then I think it’s important to know that a 25mm f/1.8 will not have the same depth of field as a 50mm f/1.8 - it will instead match a 50mm f/2.5 because DoF varies with focal length as well as aperture. Optically it is a 25mm lens, with the same DoF as a FF 25mm would have
I would argue that the compactness argument is only true for superzoom lenses. APSC mirrorlesses lenses from about 24-100mm equivalent as just as compact and light as any M43 lens. m43 only makes sense if you are already invested in it the form factor or if you primarily shoot with superzooms (e.g. if you are wildlife photographer and you want to travel very light). IMHO m43 should never be recommended to beginners in today's day and age. Three reasons why: 1) the lack of investment by OM and Panasonic - the state of M43 is really dire. They are about a decade behind everything else. Autofocus is contrast detect only on all but 2 very expensive bodies - and even there its 125 point phase detect only, which is the same as first generation from Sony from about 2012. Having a less user friendly system that you either have to manual focus with or learn to compensate for the drawbacks is a terrible choice if you are beginner. 2) the crop factor is a limitation that is no longer justified by the advantages of the format (with the exception of superzoom). Less dynamic range and DOF are limitations you can learn to work around, but they also make the system a bad choice for beginners as the aperture is a key component of the exposure triangle and DoF is something you need to learn to use. Starting out with a massive 2x crop factor basically gives you a handicap on learning the basics. 3) Its not really value for money. Yes some 2nd hand bodies and lenses are cheap, but so are APSC and you get more performance and more up-to-date technology with these. Going back to the first point there has been a massive lack of investment in the M43 form factor. New bodies are all very far behind the curve on technology but still cost similar to a mid-range camera for any other form factor. 2nd hand bodies are affordable but also provide much, much less performance. You end up with decades old autofocus and outdated processors. These aren't the be all or end all, and you can compensate for these limitations. But as a beginner you do want good autofocus and processing until you learn the basics and gain the knowledge/expertise to shoot in manual and priority modes to overcome these limitations.
Thank you for the video. I use MFT for general photography and I love the system. I am fortunate enough to own an f1.2 45mm lens, which I use for portraits. I can assure you that the bokeh from this lens is more than sufficient. In my totally biased opinion, an OM-1 Mkii would be a better choice for you than the G9 Mkii.
If you get Sony full frame camera with Tamron 20-40mm 2.8 and 50-400mm 4.5 - 6.3, then the whole package to carry is quite light. You can crop full frame 61MP down M43 equivalent. M43 does not really give you weight saving. You can go from full frame to M43 but not the other way.
61MP sensors have their own disadvantages. At the high a MP count you throw away the FF low light advantage and also gain slower readout times, burst rates and massive file sizes.
@@JoeMaranophotography Also they are prone to micro-jitter which causes reduction in sharpness, the Sony A7r4 and r5 do have IBIS but its only effective to like 1/20th of a stop, which is WAY worse than Olympus or Panasonic which can do 1 second handheld exposures.
@@JoeMaranophotography That's not true, larger pixels do not give better lowlight capabilities the sensor size is the main factor. Richard Butler debunked this like 5 years ago, when comparing a 12mp and a 45mp full frame sensor you get similar amounts of noise. You'll only se a difference at the pixel level 1:1 but that is not how anyone views images.
Please stop spreading fallacies. F2.8 is aperture to focal length it has absolutely nothing to do with any sensor size. In fact, F2.8 is the reason an MFT lens is smaller than an FF lens. Light particles or waves aren't big, so what's this nonsense you need large pixels? Do your light particles wear gumboots? The fallacies you wasted your breath on have absolutely nothing to do with image quality. Why is there the denial that the most popular cameras, mobile phones, are popular as the images they produce are liked by billions of people? You hinted at the problem with Full Frame with a reference to Leica, an excellent product if you don't want to show where the subject of a photograph was. A camera with interchangeable lenses can produce photographs a mobile phone would struggle to produce, that doesn't mean those photographs are any better. The alternative would be everyone would choose to use even larger formats than Full Frame. So cut out this comparison, not as good as nonsense, please.
😂😂This guy have lack of knowledge of physics... Light is light. FF vs micro 4/3 put them in same light control condition and setting will be same to obtain same exposed pictures. Let's say if you are inside in control environment your full frame will have same settting as micro 4/3. Example FF camera f2.8, 1/100s, ISO 200 will be same in micro 4/3. What will be different is shallow depth of field micro4/3 having half of ff cause crop factor of 2. Example 25mm micro 4/3 equals 50mm ff field of view but if you take picture in ff with 25mm you will have same blur like 25mm micro 4/3 just field of view will be different. What makes ff better in low light perfomance used to be size of pixels as you mentioned so square area of sensor divided by amount of pixels so they temp to be bigger and better guttering light. So ff 60mpx in theory is worse for low light condition than 20mpx ff. But even that is not totally true and especially new half stack sensor are worse low light performers than previous generation no stack sensors. FF these days with back light half stack sensors are usually 1.7-2 stops better than micro 4/3 but that said if you do night landscapes and you don't want everything be blurry at background you need to stop ff to f5.6-11 whilst micro 4/3 you can be in F2.8 -5.6 with same depth of field so your 2 stops of light afvantage disappeared immediately. What I see is lack of people's knowledge about micro 4/3s to really be where system deserves to be, especially if you not need blurred everything out or you not constantly working in low light where micro 4/3 sensor due to lack of investment to technology lack behind of the ff/apsc counterparts.
I’ve moved back to m43 after a decade of full frame. I print a lot. Looking at the large prints around the house, not one person ever asks what size the sensor was. I completely recommend m43 for serious photographers.
@9:15 I’m not sure you’re correct about aperture. Yes, F2.8 on a 2x crop gives you the depth of field of 5.6 equivalent. But you still get the same light to the sensor as 2.8.
You get the same light per square inch. But ff gets 4x more light because it's four times larger
@@video-carl
In other words you get the same light, but the image circle on a FF lens is bigger than a m4/3 lens.
People do not understand when you say 4x more light, they think its 4 times brighter, which its not, its just 4 times bigger image circle thats output at the back of the lens.
@@SMGJohn that's right; at the same focal length a ff sensor will collect 4x more light across a 4x bigger image; same light at any spot. m43 will collect ¼ of the light but across ¼ of the image size of ff.
@@video-carl A full frame sensor is only 2x larger not 4x larger.
@@kevinfairbairn7922ff is twice as long and twice as wide. It would take four m43 sensors to cover a ff sensor.
You hit the nail on the head. I spend all year wondering if I need full frame, one week in Ogwen Valley and I’m like “nope” m43 make sense when you walk with your camera gear. Love the channel mate.
You said it! I was all full frame, then tried MFT, now I only have one FF, but I don't use it as much, not as fun!
- Huge DOF(awesome for streets and landscape)
- Possibly best battery capacity. The battery on my OM1 mrk II lasts for days.
- Price for what you get. Bought my OM1 mrk II used for 450usd. Beat the one if you can!
- Len's possibilities. Small primes for peanut money.
- Build quality. Both Olympus and Panasonic.
Appreciate your "down to earth" videos. Keep them coming!
I have a lumix gx80 with the 12-60 and 45-150 which covers all i need as a walk about camera and it fits in a very small sling bag and the quality of the images are very good when edited in affinity photo
Portability is the main attraction of Micro four thirds, not only for climbing mountains, but any form of trekking and camping when we tend to carry backpacks with all sorts of gear leaving little room for large cameras and lenses. Offering quality and flexibility far superior to compact point and shoot cameras with little gain in size and weight.
I left full frame for MFT a year ago. My main body is the Panasonic G9, the first version. From 2017. It offers so much more than the Z5 I had. Same price, so much better.
Seriously, people put way too much emphasis on the sensor size.
I agree with you. I've had a G9 since 2018. Still so feature packed and well built. I have also a G9ii bought at a $500 trade in bonus discount last January. I get the FF itch every so often but in good light no more is needed.
And those people are right, the bigger the sensor the better IQ. Your Z5 was the cheapest FF on the market. You set your bar pretty low.
m4/3 is a blessing to digital photography. Used gear super cheap. and the new gear is still relevant .
Recently purchased the G9ii and so far no complaints. I think what isn't mentioned often enough is the handling. Most intuitive and fun camera I have ever used (also love the LUT features)
And after a recent trip to Amsterdam.... That humidity and heat was no joke.
I thought f2.8 was equivalent to full frame in terms of light gathering for the sensor size but it’s like 5.6 on full frame in terms of dof and bokeh? Obviously full frame have better higher iso capabilities too so it’s does lean heavily towards ff for lower light
Also the dynamic range is more about pixel pitch/photosites than just pixel size. You can stuff a lot of very small pixels into the same space as a few large pixels without reducing the dynamic range overall. The larger pixels capture more light on a per pixel basis but there are many more of the smaller pixels - which is why the surface area is the key here. I.e. A 61 mp FF sensor will have the same pixels as a 26mm APSC sensor but will have better dynamic range than the APSC sensor and will have as good dynamic range as a 24mp FF sensor with much larger pixels.
Noise is the issue with small pixels.
I JUST bought a new (to me) APSC DSLR, I did not need to see this video right now haha. Love it though, great video per usual :) Also, that first pic of the path was amazing.
APS-C is great
@@thecinemafox5531 Agree....in between FF and MFT - still benefit the smaller and easier to carry gear than FF, and wth the newer flagship MFT there is not much difference...if any... in body size
Enjoyed that video, thanks. I've used mostly M43 for 11 years. I've tried Fuji twice and Canon FF but always moved back. You mentioned the compromises but they are all remediable. As you say, bracket for dynamic range (or use the built in ND grad in the latest OMD body), use one of the noise reduction software packages for higher iso noise, etc etc. Being able to carry a body and zooms from 24-800 equivalent in a shoulder bag is superb for an outdoor photographer who's out all day.
Oh, and as you mentioned, I haven't needed to use a tripod for months.
With todays software. Full frame gives NOTHING extra, apart from weight and cost. Arguably ?. Yes.
Having that lens is great for your "walkabout" photography. The range will give you a ton of creative options.
What is that lens?
Proud user of LUMIX MFT cameras since 2008. Never looked back.
I use MFT since 2013 and i love it! Bought it, because i have small hands and the lower weight. The rest of my equipment is heavy enough to carry around😂, i use a 12-60 lens, a 12 wideangle and a 45-200 telezoom from Panasonic lumix.
My goto landscape/general setup is currently the G9ii with the 3 PL F/2.8-4 zooms + the 1.4TC. It's been great for landscape and the IQ is definitely a step up from my og G9. What I'm really hoping for next from m43 is a good updated small/medium sized body (no, the OM5 rebadging doesn't count). I still use my GX8 and GM1 and honestly like them more than the G9ii, except when IQ matters, and when using the 50-200.
Cost. Bulk. Weight. Weather sealing. The combined reasons I use MFT (Oly bodies & glass)
I'm here in Tasmania, so I understand how a 25~30deg day can be uncomfortable. Not only am I acclimatised to lower temps (it's 12 right now ands I'm inside in a singlet), the heat produced at lower temps in higher and lower latitudes is entirely different. I understand it as being largely to do with the much thinner atmospheric protection. Because, like the oceans which heap up at the equator due to centrifugal force, so does the atmosphere. We are both at about 30% of equatorial atmospheric cover, so more direct sunlight and uv etc.
You're going to be the owner of a 4/3 camera is my prediction. Henry Turner has settled on it too because he does a lot of mountains. Seems like a real solution for hiking to me.
Literally just got a used om system OM1, incredible price and I'm having a blast with it for my first MFT
The EM1.2 or EM1.3 are better. Still.
@@formermpc10 meh im quite happy with this for the price
@@formermpc10Completely disagree, I have owned and loved all of the EM1 series cameras and yes they are exceptional gear but the OM1 and mkii are infinitely superior to all of them, better processor, EVF, sensor, autofocus, stabilisation plus a raft of extra features that the EM1’s simply can’t compete with. On top of that the menu system is a massive improvement which ensures that the OM1’s are far more user friendly to boot!
OM 5 plus 12/45 and 40/150 both F4 or the 14/150 F4/5.6 good combs are you happy with the osprey bag is it the stratos 36 or 34l good video
Hmm, yeah I think you are wrong about apertures. A M43 lens with an aperture of f/2.8 will, for any given scene, have the same shutter speed and ISO as a full frame f/2.8. It will have a greater depth of field, but for landscape and most wildlife that’s an advantage!
If you liked the LUMIX try an Om Systems Om-1 - a properly pro camera in a package smaller than a Nikon Z6, for example.
Re:blurry backgrounds, yes you need to start using f/1.8 or f/1.4 lenses to get a large effect, but while on FF f/1.4 lenses are large heavy and expensive, on M43 they are small light and cheap!
I run with both and use M43 for travel and concerts where size and weight are the driving factors. You can assemble a second hand body and a full set of lenses for about the same as a decent single zoom for FF.
I am racking my brain here. I don’t shoot video and I feel I just bought the z6iii wasting my money and should have kept my and maybe have kept my OM-1 with the 40-150, 12-40.
I now have the NIKKOR 180-600, 24-120, and the 105. I just felt I was missing something with my Micro4/3. All of my pictures seemed soft when comparing to FF pictures.
I do shoot wildlife, I shoot landscape, and I do shoot macro.
so I’m your honest opinion, should I trade my z6iii back to the OM-1?
Or just keep the Z6iii and get used to it?
I’m no professional, but I do love to print and I do love to post my pictures.
Help me make up my mind
I went from APS-C to full frame to MFT. I bought my first MFT camera in 2015 but I never stopped using full frame. I absolutely love my OM System/Olympus kit and it excels in long focal lengths and light weight, but it does have its drawbacks. They are generally noisier and really not great in low light. It's not terrible, but it can't compare with a full frame camera, and I do a lot of blue hour photography. I use the MFT kit for travel and the full frame kit for local shoots, which does include cityscapes, landscapes, and other commercial type of shoots. I think that's a good split of duties, as it were, doing what each camera system does best. I don't foresee giving up either system anytime soon. In fact, I just upgraded from a DSLR to a mirrorless full frame.
I do think that MFT has kind of reached its megapixel limits, which is why the Olympus/OM System top-end cameras have been stuck at 20mp for years. The megapixel count is not important for its own sake, but it does give some leeway for cropping when you can't physically move closer to the subject.
Panasonic went 25Mpx
@@angeloplayforoneso did Oly for still, you just need to turn it on. 25Mp 14bit
Thx man ♡
Awesome video. Great to see common sense info on photography in the real world. Love your content and images 🙌
Yeah, point 1 is pretty valid, I took a full frame 5D mark II backpacking in British Columbia with a plastic fantastic and I almost wish I took my 80D or Rebel SL2 (if I still had it). 50mm f/1.8 isn't a large lens but the body is still heavy no matter how you look at it
You raise some valid points for using m43. It is a popular format for landscape photographers. I could easily see choosing it for its compact form factor.
Im seriously thinking about an om5 with a 60mm macro and raynox 250 instead of my first path, canon r7 with 100mm.
If you stick with MFT may I suggest that you get a Panasonic 200mm Prime lens. It is astonishingly pin-sharp at f2.8. I got mine second hand from MPB.
All my lenses are Panasonic like my camera because I'm too scared to buy any Olympus glass because I don't know if it will play nicely with my Panasonic bodies. However I do have my beady eye on an Olympus 300mm Prime lens, but I won't get one till somebody can let me know if the lens and body will work together.
Fun fact, crop sensor lenses needs to be much sharper and use higher quality glass then full frame lenses which can use lower quality lenses but they also need to be bigger, so why are full frame lenses more expensive? Well its like you said, its just more material overall needed and of course, more glass.
But full frame lenses are ironically, less sharp then crop sensor glass is, a lot of people say FF glass is superior, have no idea what they are on about, its quite the opposite.
Panasonic needs to pack some of the newer features into a G80/90 sized body.
So what was the humidity that particular day?
Thing is the sony a6000 range even the a5100 has an apsc size sensor decent lenses and are cheaper than the latest mft cameras ?
About once a year I'll toy with the idea of getting an OM-1. I'll also consider getting an XT-5. But, I always find enough reasons not to buy into an Olympus or Fuji system. My full frame cameras and lenses are Sony. But, I wanted a smaller and lighter system for travel. So, I currently use an A7CR with a 16-35 GM II, a 50mm 1.4 GM, and 70-200 G II. Works for me.
Good to avoid the OM-1 series.
@@formermpc10 If someone else wants to shoot Olympus, Fuji, or any other brand, who am I to disagree? Use whatever works for you. As for me, I'm sticking with, Sony,
Lovely shot of a meadow pipit, not a song thrush 😀
For me another advantage is using micro 4/3 for travel.
I want to point out, regarding the aperture, you're able to get lenses with more light for MFT than you are for full frame. That's really the only point of comparison between MFT lenses and full frame lenses.
This is also why I like Canon's APS-C mirrorless. I have a 1.6 crop factor. Not as much weight savings as M43 for lenses, but still significant. I also get better depth of field for landscape than full-frame. The Lumix G95 has my interest. I bit smaller than the G9.
Unfortunately canon don't support their APSC cameras with quality APSC lenses. For them, APSC is just a gateway drug into their FF cameras so APSC is an afterthought
Canon APS-C requires use of third party lenses and while Sigma primes for Canon are small and really good, every other brand makes huge lenses, in fact only Sony makes small compact APS-C lenses, are they are not as good as Leica or Olympus on micro 4/3 system, mark my word on that, way more distortions, flaring issues and overall not as sharp or contrasty. Also Sony uses this silly rangefinder body style which I am not a huge fan of, but you might be, its worth a checkout.
What camera did you use to film this? I notice a significant amount of grain.
FWTW An over looked Panasonic lens is the 35-100 4-5.6. A tiny lens lens which full frame is an 70-200 granted its not a 2.8, Its also not in that price range can be had £200 Good on MPB. Used it few weeks ago at a graduation for portraits shots.
I bought the Olympus EM-5mkII back when it was new. Aside from the horrible user interface it’s a great camera, the IBIS is amazing and it takes fantastic pictures, probably more so now that there are so many great post processing option’s available usuch as DxO PureRaw4 or Topaz AI. My mistake was to buy it with the Oly 12-40 f2.8 pro lens. Like you, I carried it on my backpack strap but it was too unwieldy for me.
Talking of carrying, what method do you use? That looks like an Osprey (Stratos?) pack but is that a waist bag too? I’ve thought about doing that but the hip straps on my Osprey have storage pockets that get in the way.
I sold a sony A7R4 sony to buy an olympus OM-1. The sony was massive overkill that gave me nothing over the olympus. BUT a s l o w computer. I print 30x40 inch with the oly.
Hint. MFT offers portable camera systems. The UK humidity is the same as you get in hell-holes like Melbourne in Oz
I've a gx9 and G9. I rarely use my full frame and apsc Nikons any more or tripod for that matter, except to keep the composition from moving
The G9ii is tempting but I'm not into birding etc so I can't really justify the upgrade
The bodies are typically smaller - that LUMIX is the exception which proves the rule.
I get lovely blurry backgrounds from M43
I shoot M43. But if you have full frame you can just go into crop mode.
So it's kind of a advantage and kind of not depending on how you look at it.
You would need at least 60mp Sony A7r4 for a 2x crop thats as sharp as the Panasonic GH5 or Olympus E-M1 mark II.
unfortunately i still got to take my 2 FF + tripods(and big lenses) up every mountain I go ...koz I shoot lot of low light stuff
The more you do it the more you get in shape, the more you know how to use the straps on your backpack for additional comfort, and you tend to invest in the best backpack out there too(for comfort, back and shoulders)
it's a different game BUT yes would love to switch to lighter weights ....when it happens it happens i guess
What about dynamic range for landscapes though?
Hi res mode 80MP 14bit on Olympus
13-14EV on the OM-1 at base ISO is about as good as it gets on any camera.
When you stated that the micro 4/3 on a 2.8 let's in less like than a full frame camera that is not exactly correct, because a 4/3 body has a 2x crop factor tw0 thins happen , a 12mm less gives you a angle of view as a 24 mm full frame cameras and the depth of field is equivalent on a 2.8 lens to 5.6, but the exposure of a2.8 lens is not affected, dynamic range is affected due to the Eastern smaller sensor and pixel density as far as camera body size goes Olympus bodies tend to be smaller than the new Panasonic G9 mkII, I Have the Panasonic S5 MKII and by full frame camera is not a big camera but for 4/3 it is on the large side as was the Panasonic G9 . But smaller camera bodies have a drawback, the buttons and dials are smaller and closer together and you have a smaller grip and that makes it harder with large lens. I have many camera systems in my collection 0f cameras that cover full frame, APSC and Micro 4/3 and I enjoy using them all but if I would choose one system from general photography I would go with APSC.
when you say they have to double the aperture : that only applies to the depth of field. Not the aperture
Re: Dynamic range, surely the closer to the range of the human eye (about 21 stops) the better ?
The display media trail cameras' DR by a long shot. Most prints can't display over 6-7 stops. Most displays can't display over 8 stops. The best HDR displays can just about display 10-11 stops.
Your eyes adjust dynamic range all the time, the real DR of the human eye is actually more like 6 to 8 stops, but your eyes adjust in such an Incredible quick time, also the ISO performance of a human eye is something like 400 LOL, but our brains are just excellent at noise reduction.
Our eyes are quite flawed overall, but our brains are fantastic computers that make a good image, thats not to say smartphones can do the same, obviously there is a limitation of physics a smaller sensors cannot overcome, only a big sensor can overcome, but a 1-inch sensor with appropriate software, could theoretically achieve a perfect human vision.
I love my om system ❤
How high does the humidity get over there? I live in the middle of the USA, and our weather is all over the place, I think we get just about everything here lol
I just looked up the hottest day here last summer( I remember how hot it was because we went to an air show) and it was 40.5 C with a heat index of about 53 C. It was BRUTAL! I got some good shots or the planes, though!
We're an island remember, so humidity in the British Isles is always well above 50%. Usually above 60%, often as high as 90%. So our moderate hot feels baking, and our moderate cold feels freezing.
@@robertmills4591 Yeah, we get high humidity here sometimes, too, but also really dry periods, it just depends on the year. Based on a 'heat index calculator' I found, it seems that humidity was only around 45% last summer, but with an actual air temp of 40.5 C, that's PLENTY hot lol
Also, I think the hottest weather I've ever personally been in was about 47 C, but I don't know what the heat index/humidity was
In my experience in mountain hikes, it is also easier to get a sunburn. May not even seem hot, perhaps less atmosphere to block the rays?? Hope you have a hat somewhere!
I love everything about M43 except the aperture. With wildlife, I need as much light as I can get and I can only decrease shutter speed so much before the animal is blurry from movement. If someone is going to solve this, my money is on Olympus!
You need F4 or F2.8 lenses which are typically better built and cheaper than FF F5.6 lenses. If you want faster than that on FF then prepare to sell your brand new car!
Well I mean you are in luck, Olympus 75mm F1.8 which has a field of view of 150mm in full frame terms. There is nothing longer at that speed to my knowledge, you could slap a 135mm F2 Canon lens I suppose, wont be as sharp though!
What is the problem with aperture? The doubling effect is just depth of field not light gathering. An f/4 mFT long telephoto will let you set same shutter speed and iSO as an f/4 full frame.
@@StuartAnderton
You do not double aperture, the aperture is the same, the only thing that changes in a lens for crop sensor is the field of view.
25mm m4/3 lens will have same field of view as a 50mm lens of a full frame, but the same bokeh as a 25mm full frame lens.
@@SMGJohn If you say a 25mm M43 lens is the equivalent of a 50mm FF lens, then I think it’s important to know that a 25mm f/1.8 will not have the same depth of field as a 50mm f/1.8 - it will instead match a 50mm f/2.5 because DoF varies with focal length as well as aperture. Optically it is a 25mm lens, with the same DoF as a FF 25mm would have
I would argue that the compactness argument is only true for superzoom lenses. APSC mirrorlesses lenses from about 24-100mm equivalent as just as compact and light as any M43 lens. m43 only makes sense if you are already invested in it the form factor or if you primarily shoot with superzooms (e.g. if you are wildlife photographer and you want to travel very light).
IMHO m43 should never be recommended to beginners in today's day and age. Three reasons why:
1) the lack of investment by OM and Panasonic - the state of M43 is really dire. They are about a decade behind everything else. Autofocus is contrast detect only on all but 2 very expensive bodies - and even there its 125 point phase detect only, which is the same as first generation from Sony from about 2012. Having a less user friendly system that you either have to manual focus with or learn to compensate for the drawbacks is a terrible choice if you are beginner.
2) the crop factor is a limitation that is no longer justified by the advantages of the format (with the exception of superzoom). Less dynamic range and DOF are limitations you can learn to work around, but they also make the system a bad choice for beginners as the aperture is a key component of the exposure triangle and DoF is something you need to learn to use. Starting out with a massive 2x crop factor basically gives you a handicap on learning the basics.
3) Its not really value for money. Yes some 2nd hand bodies and lenses are cheap, but so are APSC and you get more performance and more up-to-date technology with these. Going back to the first point there has been a massive lack of investment in the M43 form factor. New bodies are all very far behind the curve on technology but still cost similar to a mid-range camera for any other form factor. 2nd hand bodies are affordable but also provide much, much less performance. You end up with decades old autofocus and outdated processors. These aren't the be all or end all, and you can compensate for these limitations. But as a beginner you do want good autofocus and processing until you learn the basics and gain the knowledge/expertise to shoot in manual and priority modes to overcome these limitations.
Thank you for the video. I use MFT for general photography and I love the system. I am fortunate enough to own an f1.2 45mm lens, which I use for portraits. I can assure you that the bokeh from this lens is more than sufficient.
In my totally biased opinion, an OM-1 Mkii would be a better choice for you than the G9 Mkii.
If you get Sony full frame camera with Tamron 20-40mm 2.8 and 50-400mm 4.5 - 6.3, then the whole package to carry is quite light. You can crop full frame 61MP down M43 equivalent. M43 does not really give you weight saving. You can go from full frame to M43 but not the other way.
60 MP divided by 4= 15MP
61MP sensors have their own disadvantages. At the high a MP count you throw away the FF low light advantage and also gain slower readout times, burst rates and massive file sizes.
@@JoeMaranophotography
Also they are prone to micro-jitter which causes reduction in sharpness, the Sony A7r4 and r5 do have IBIS but its only effective to like 1/20th of a stop, which is WAY worse than Olympus or Panasonic which can do 1 second handheld exposures.
@@JoeMaranophotography That's not true, larger pixels do not give better lowlight capabilities the sensor size is the main factor. Richard Butler debunked this like 5 years ago, when comparing a 12mp and a 45mp full frame sensor you get similar amounts of noise. You'll only se a difference at the pixel level 1:1 but that is not how anyone views images.
@FlappySock Why does the GH5s have less megapixels and the Sony A7S series? Because it's better for low light
Just too expensive for m4/3.
Another channel that delete comments 🤦♂️
Please stop spreading fallacies. F2.8 is aperture to focal length it has absolutely nothing to do with any sensor size. In fact, F2.8 is the reason an MFT lens is smaller than an FF lens. Light particles or waves aren't big, so what's this nonsense you need large pixels? Do your light particles wear gumboots?
The fallacies you wasted your breath on have absolutely nothing to do with image quality.
Why is there the denial that the most popular cameras, mobile phones, are popular as the images they produce are liked by billions of people?
You hinted at the problem with Full Frame with a reference to Leica, an excellent product if you don't want to show where the subject of a photograph was.
A camera with interchangeable lenses can produce photographs a mobile phone would struggle to produce, that doesn't mean those photographs are any better.
The alternative would be everyone would choose to use even larger formats than Full Frame.
So cut out this comparison, not as good as nonsense, please.
😂😂This guy have lack of knowledge of physics... Light is light. FF vs micro 4/3 put them in same light control condition and setting will be same to obtain same exposed pictures. Let's say if you are inside in control environment your full frame will have same settting as micro 4/3. Example FF camera f2.8, 1/100s, ISO 200 will be same in micro 4/3. What will be different is shallow depth of field micro4/3 having half of ff cause crop factor of 2. Example 25mm micro 4/3 equals 50mm ff field of view but if you take picture in ff with 25mm you will have same blur like 25mm micro 4/3 just field of view will be different. What makes ff better in low light perfomance used to be size of pixels as you mentioned so square area of sensor divided by amount of pixels so they temp to be bigger and better guttering light. So ff 60mpx in theory is worse for low light condition than 20mpx ff. But even that is not totally true and especially new half stack sensor are worse low light performers than previous generation no stack sensors. FF these days with back light half stack sensors are usually 1.7-2 stops better than micro 4/3 but that said if you do night landscapes and you don't want everything be blurry at background you need to stop ff to f5.6-11 whilst micro 4/3 you can be in F2.8 -5.6 with same depth of field so your 2 stops of light afvantage disappeared immediately. What I see is lack of people's knowledge about micro 4/3s to really be where system deserves to be, especially if you not need blurred everything out or you not constantly working in low light where micro 4/3 sensor due to lack of investment to technology lack behind of the ff/apsc counterparts.
I've used m43 for more than a decade. I no longer recommend it for serious photographers.
Why's that?
I’ve moved back to m43 after a decade of full frame. I print a lot. Looking at the large prints around the house, not one person ever asks what size the sensor was. I completely recommend m43 for serious photographers.