this video shows nothing. you don't make proper adjustments to achieve similar "looks" based upon aperture and focal length (or if you did: you didn't tell us). You don't hold yourselves to any sort of standard or metrics (you could use a "price limit" or "best that money could buy" setup for each format, or anything really but you don't). You use a 3rd-party multi-format lens on the Lumix (the Sigma 16 is designed to accomodate both APS-C and M43 and is not M43 specialized). You also use 3rd-party budget lenses on both Sony cameras (with a lens intended for full frame format being used on the APS-C camera). Also, if you are testing the formats, then you should either print them with no adjustments, or with light/shadow adjustments ONLY, so calibrating your monitor is pointless. Not to mention you use cameras with different specialties within their formats. The Sony A7Riv is pixel-dense and sacrifices low-light capability in exchange for ample-light editing headroom and resolution. The Lumix GH5 and Sony A6600 are both primarily video cameras and for stills, especially lowlight long exposures, you would fare better with a Fujifilm APS-C and an Olympus M43 in their stead. This wasn't scientific, this wasn't even a test, this was a waste of time and load of bullshit.
@A Google User Translation: "I don't like people trying to make money for the time and effort they put into creating content for my benefit." Cool dude. Have a great life.
@@TheSlantedLens I don't think you're inept. There sounds to be a fair amount of bias and misunderstanding and the impact is the outcome is skewed-that people who don't know as much now have a notion that smaller sensors can't produce quality images. That is false. Granted, a lot of ways medium format will win but it isn't a foregone conclusion. There is a great deal of responsibility on the internet to share valuable and valid information. As someone who has also shot with everything from iPhone cameras to medium format (Fujifilm) I can say that the only people who care much about sensor size are those who don't understand cameras and, therefore, on a TH-cam channel, propagate misinformation. I have photos hanging in museums shot with m43, APS-C, and 35mm sensors at the same size you show and people gawk at the photos because they are great photos. Only a select few have asked about what I shot them on but no one ever then says "well, that's why they could have been better." There was discussion about the quality of the stars in the image-that is not related to the sensors. The gradation of the cool tones to warm tones also may not be the sensor but the lens too-another example. That isn't to say that the whole system isn't to be taken into account when buying in-it is to say that this test doesn't do any of those systems justice. Not the medium format, not 35mm, not APS-C, not m43.
1. Try the G9 in High Resolution mode. Sure it won't beat Medium Format but the difference will be significant. 2. The photograph is only as good as the photographer. 3. Professional use is relative, your needs are not everyone else's needs. 4. Versatility and price matter, a sacrifice on sensor size can be made intentionally. 5. It's worth acknowledging that technology will improve and offset the current test. 6. Constraints can provide a form of creative liberation, expensive & large gear can become a limiting obsession. As far as this test which is fairly clinical in nature, I agree the results are what you expect. I enjoyed the accuracy of the test but not so much the bias towards larger sensors.
@@deim With proper setting of the aperture and camera you can make the all images at base ISO. They shot on tripod! Color reproduction is not that much depend on the sensor but rather on lens and processing, except using higher ISO values.
I agree!! Most people don’t seem to notice. By the way.. this video is sponsored by Tamron (see the beginning), so that is why they partnered it with the Tamron. They should have chosen the Sony FE 35mm F1.4 or the Sigma Art F1.4 or hell.. take the Sony FE 35mm F1.8 or the Rokinon/Samyang AF 35mm F1.4. All these lenses are better than the Tamron (which is no shame as the Tamron is way cheaper). This just seems silly to me.
I am no expert. But if it comes to low light shooting with Micro Four Thirds, please let Robin Wong do the tech. PS. The lenses you use for the GH5 is (are) a joke.
The GH5 really shouldn't have been shot at f8 in that dusk situation. I shoot 5.6 in daylight settings. 3.5 or 4 would have been more appropriate. Throw in Topaz DeNoise AI and you have a great print sharp all the way through. Modern software makes old 6mp sensor prints look amazing at very large sizes like 40 x 60.
@@TheSlantedLens I'm a print designer and we use AI all the time to enlarge low-res photos. It works like magic. Printing four-thirds shouldn't be a big problem.
I think this comparison is making too much out of the highlight differences. Properly exposed to the right this is a non-issue - but puts more strain on shadow recovery. In this case, putting the 4433 camera at F10, the 35mm camera at F8, the APS-C camera at F5.6 and the MFT camera at F4 would give the same DOF and exposing to the right would allow for a true comparison of what can be achieved on a tripod. Could you make a follow up video where you set the cameras to equivalent F stops and adjust either exposure time or ISO correspondingly? For a light trail image you might want to fix shutter speed and adjust ISO but for many landscapes, shutter speed on a tripod can help to improve the smaller sensors a *lot*.
On those higher resolution small sensors you were measuring lens resolution, not sensor resolution. Basically, the very, very best lenses can barely handle 120 line pairs/mm. Film photo lenses use to be around 60 lp/mm. The Hasselblad was at 94 lp/mm, the A7R4 at 133, the A6600 at 127, and the GH5 at 149. The high density has always limited APS-C lenses. Really anything over 20MP in an APS-C (118 lp/mm) is pretty is more for marketing than photography. The A7R4 should only be compared to the X1DII with the best Sony GM lenses, not one from Tamron. The A6600 has the same problem, but the best APS-C lenses are the Sigma 18-35 and 50-100. A Sony GM or Sigma prime also. The GH-5 just wasn't going to happen. For video the image is 3840x2048...not a problem. The low light meant the big sensors had lots of signal strength, the small sensors were starved for photons. If you had shot in studio or in daylight, the small sensors would have had a much better dynamic range. You should have shot a MacBeth card and calibrated it in post. The color rendition is both in the lens (a strong point of the old Leicas) and in the filters on the sensor. With the random lens selection the test is pretty meaningless here.
In video cameras and in some smartphones oversampling (e.g. 4 sensor pixels for 1 image pixel) allows direct sensing of each color rather than the demosaicing algorithm of the Bayer array.
The only way to really compare these sensors is with a blind test. I noticed that the reviewers giggled before they discussed m. four-thirds for example, and praised the Blad like it was made in heaven and I think I saw one of the reviewers drool a little bit when he mentioned the name Hasselblad. While we would obviously expect the Blad prints to be better, the reviewers preconceptions are easily seen here. Blind tests, where the prints are laid out with no indication of what camera was used, would yield a more meaningful comparison. For a comparison more relevant to the average photographer, the prints should have all been printed at the same resolution, even if this means smaller prints, and then judged by somebody who had no idea which were which. That would be an interesting and more relevant comparison.
You are getting hammered in the comments and downvotes - and frankly you deserve all of them. This is the most ridiculous "comparison" I have yet to see on TH-cam and I've seen a lot of those. You're comparing pro glass to third-party consumer grade/entry-level glass. You guys are supposed to be professional photographers - you *KNOW* that lenses are as important if not more so than the sensor, right?? You're putting a medium format sensor paired with a $1100 lens up against smaller sensors using $299 lenses. It's almost like you "proved" nothing at all in regards to the sensors and everything about the quality of the glass you mount on those sensors.
Just posted a comparison where we used high-quality lenses for all the formats (and all new cameras too!). Would love to hear your thoughts: th-cam.com/video/aQH-LVZwahk/w-d-xo.html
to have comparable result shouldnt you have different apertures as the same aperture will give different results in depth of field for example on different sensor sizes
We chose a single aperture to look at sensors. But if you want to look at different apertures take a look at this lesson: th-cam.com/video/WhEtMQXutBg/w-d-xo.html
For portraiture that is certainly true. That's one of the reasons we chose the landscape scene that we did: at that distance, with that wider angle view on each camera, the differences in depth of field are imperceptible.
You are very correct. If they used the same f number between all shots, then this whole test is invalid. The shots are not the same. Just because its stopped down so we cannot see the difference in depth of field does not mean the shots are technically the same. For such a test the difference is this: the depth of field is controlled by aperture size (the actual aperture size - we just set it using the f number). The size of the aperture also determines how much light can enter the camera. So if we change the aperture size and hence change the depth of field then we're also changing how much light is going in. So if we're testing how well two cameras will perform on an identical shot, it MUST be technically identical: same field of view, same _technical_ depth of field, and same shutter speed. To make an identical shot between two different sensor sizes one *must* change the focal length (to keep the same field of view), change the f number (to keep the aperture for depth of field), and change the ISO.
Properly exposed those crop and m43 sensor cameras hold up pretty well, especially considering the cost difference between them and the full frame / medium format camera and lenses!
As someone who shoots Phase One, this comparison is exactly why we shoot medium format. I should point out, however, medium format also has both full frame and cropped sensors and the Hasselblad is a crop sensor and even better results come from a full frame medium format sensor. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking medium format is about resolution. It was, back in the film days, but in the digital world it is about color depth and tonal range. The cheap medium format cameras like this Hasselblad get most of the way there, but a full frame medium format sensor gives the ultimate in good results and allowing the photographer to work the image. Having said that, I use cameras with all sizes of sensors right down to the GoPro, and everyone of those sensors is capable of being the best sensor size for the job it is suited for. There is never a universally “best” sensor, just sensors that are best for the job in hand.
Thanks for the insight man! I totally agree with you on the last point, and I would love to get my hands on a larger sensor MF body to experience the best that digital photography has to offer.
I could definitely see the difference between the medium format & the A7R4. The difference between medium format and full frame was so much bigger then the difference between the full frame and crop sensor.
It's not because this test is nonsense. They didn't even try to make it an even playing field. This test is the equivalent of putting a new 2020 car against a used 2010.
One important factor.Hasselblad has 16 bit, Sony has 14 bit for single shoot. Gh5 has 12 bit. Sony apsc has 12bit for long exposure NR/bulb and continues mode. The same wih fuji xt3. Fuji says nothing about it, but just check the files from fuji with rawdigger software. For m43 it was worth checking out m1mii/m1miii. You have checked the latest apsc and ff sensor application but the oldest and not best for 20 mpx m43. For image resolution, lenses have a bigger impact than the number of mpx. It's not about the type of sensor, but how you can use it.
Altough f8 will not be optimal with smaller sensor and that diffraction will not be the same, in term of light it makes perfect sense not to change the aperture regarding the format. There is no "face-palm" here. Any lens designed for micro4/3 will gather one quarter of the light collected by the equivalent lens designed for full-frame, at the same aperture. But in the meantime, a micro4/3 sensor is one quarter in surface of a full-frame one. So, at f2.8, f4, f8 or any other given aperture, both micro4/3, full-frame, APSC lens collect exactly the same amount of light PER SENSOR SURFACE. It would have made no sense to change the aperture of this test regarding to the sensor size (but OK, for diffraction and optimal sharpness, the test is flawed)
Nice video, however I would have liked the Fuji MF 100MP in that row of test camera's to see the difference between the 100MP and 50MP MF. But maybe in the future. What should also be taken in consideration is the quality of the lense(s), but overall the point is made. Thanks for sharing.
And I will like to see a Oly OMD E-M1 Mark III High Res shot in the same line but why to bring the latest if you can diminish the advances in technology by comparing a 3+ year old MFT against the latest from other formats, that by the way the same company Panasonic has a G9 model for the steel photographers out there instead of the video engineered GH5, so this videos are for the very unhappy TH-cam watchers or just bored out of our minds this days......
@@steveglassphotography2825 sure but when it comes to quality you can't give the camera all credit. Basically you marry glass and date a camera , so invest in good glass!!
I did consider selling my Nikon gear a couple of years ago and going to medium format but the price vs reward was very hard to justify. Particularly, as I had a full set of prime and zoom lenses. In the end, I kept my Nikon gear but bought a Fujifilm X-H1 instead (with a few lenses (I love the Fujifilm 90mm f/2)). But for studio work, I will 90% go with the D800, even though the results of the X-H1 because 1. I just like the reasurance of full frame 2. Full frame just looks more professional to the client) 3. Whilst Fujifilm lenses are great, I spent 15 years building up an amazing collection for full frame zoom and prime lenses. So I really can't see me moving away from full frame, even though my photography is moving far more to fine art studio portraiture, where medium format does look impressive to a high paying client.
Makes total sense. When you invest in all the lenses it is hard to make a switch, especially if you are happy with the results you are getting. Keep on clickin!
I am sorry, but I always hear everybody say “Lens is more important than the body”.. so why did you chose to partner the Sony A7 R IV with a mediocre lens like the Tamron 35mm f2.8?? I don’t think you went for a bad lens with the Hasselblad. Chose a lens that is worth mounting on the A7 R IV!!!
We're a small operation and standard resource limitations have been exacerbated by COVID-19. If you want to send us a nicer 35mm lens, I'd love to reshoot.
Kenneth Merrill As I am from Europe I see some limitations in your request. But I am pretty sure there must be organizations that would love to help you out. Plus I think it is your own responsibility to create the right setup for your reviews. Apart from this video, I like your channel.
Interesting discussion especially around noise in smaller sensors. But they lose me when they say "M43 for only snapshots" and then these fellas go onto to show 24" prints as a comparison. That's kind of ridiculous. How many shooters even among some pros are printing 24" prints as a judge of output. I would challenge them to be able to pick out these 4 cameras on a properly exposed 11 x 14 print or even 16 x 20. I'll bet from a reasonable viewing distance they could not tell the difference.
I agree with most of the comments here. You bill this as a sensor size comparison, but the single biggest variable in image quality is lens quality. In any event, it's near impossible to draw conclusions from any sort of test when you are changing multiple variables at the same time, other than the obvious: 1) larger sensors give better quality images, and 2) lesser quality lenses will give lesser quality images.
This is actually something I wish I had learned earlier on. It's hard to get the perfect amount of camera shake, and it's taken me a while to find the right straps with the proper width and weight to get the effect I like. Of course wind conditions affect things too, but I'm pretty happy with the results here.
Understanding that this is a sensor test but the glass in front of the sensors has A LOT to do with perceived resolution and color rendering to the sensor . But overall results are what I would have expected. Especially the Hasselblad
The A7R IV is a modern marvel. The X1D II appears to have a sort of magenta cast to my eyes (not unlike my old 50S). Can't wait to see if the Canon R5s 90MP rumors are true. I think Fuji is going to have a difficult time justifying their bulk & price over the next 2-3 years. I loved my 50S, but the a7riv produced better (and more in-focus) images than the 50S.
What lenses did you use? Why change the color? What about pixel shift or High Res modes? Why not ETTR? So many variables not touched upon, making this comparison seem not serious at all. It would be like judging every capability of the Hasselblad by its ability do bird photography, it just wouldn't be fair
Jonathan Ormandy My friend uses a GH5 for his video business but also uses it for photos. It’s actually quite impressive, especially when you think how old it is now.
Considering the price differences I think you should have gone at least for Olympus em1 mk3 for micro 4/3, for the color science is quite different. And it also has this 50mpxl res mode. I think the result would be different.
I see many FF camera users are getting upset here 🤣🤣 let’s be honest. I see not a BIG difference between a7r4 and a6600. Honestly I expected much image quality gap between those two different sensors, but i think i was wrong. I’m currently using A7R3. But i think I’m getting a6600 now.. 😂 however, i see big difference between MF and FF. Wow.. great job 👍🏻👍🏻
This is interesting... But we should keep in mind that those are also different lenses and they allow slightly different amounts light to the sensor. Even for the same F stop number. Which also affects the result.
Print calibration, profiling. For me, a couple years ago, the choice between Datacolor and X-rite was arbitrary, except. X-rite had the DNA of trusted brands from the film calibration days like MacBeth and others. And the "ColorChecker Passport". My choice was not better motivated than that. I have no complaints and they have been great at supporting me as a tiny user. Now I see how you click on each square in the profile print, running the densitometer through a slot in a guide. I saw you do that, Jay P, and thought, "really?" I print, set the software, run the device as a handheld scanner over lanes of squares (no clicking, no pausing) - very smooth operation. If i had to really click all those squares like that, the first time scanning would be the last time for me. i1Studio - monitors, printer-ink-paper, projectors. Create profiles with the camera/lens/light-type with the passport and everything falls into place - color and tone. They have an app to create a "mixed profile" where you had two types of light alternating between shots, like an indoor event with outdoor light through windows. I can do about the same with the naked eye, but it takes much more time and attention. Sharpening, contrast, dodge/burn, ..., crop, keystone, ..., artistic choices, ..., client desires, ..., retouch, ... - lots to do still and if we can reduce work elsewhere. Still remember retouching negatives.
@@TheSlantedLens - what, no time? Because of all those clicks? The fun. Of course, you have a business to run. Totally appreciated. I don't have to earn money with it anymore. Is photography a hobby in that case? You know the definition of hobby: maximize spending while minimizing utility. No, that's not what I do, to be honest.
Why do you refer to a "crop" sensor camera? Aren't they ALL crops? Medium format crop, Full-frame crop, APS-C crop, Micro Four Thirds Crop... You make it sound really snobby and pejorative. Oooh I have a Full-frame and you have a "crop"... you're missing part of the image. This is quite silly. Also, you're shooting M43 at f8? And Medium Format too?
The Hasselblad also have a 16-bit RAW images, Sony 14bits, others probably also 14bits (for pictures), so this adds to the quality of the picture. PS: Good job on this video!
Interesting comparison. The amount of difference one would see (IMO) really does depend on the use case scenario. Outside of landscape and fashion photography viewing a print is not quite so common. Under most less strenuous situations I doubt the differences would be as noticeable. If I were trying to make a living with my work I would choose the appropriate tool for the type of work I was doing. Right now I shoot apsc and it works well for my needs. However I am not trying to make a living with my work.
Just the comparison I was looking for! Too bad you never mentioned how you captured the images in terms of f-stop and image crop, because that way you didn't really compare the four cameras, but really just stated that it is possible to take a cleaner image with a medium format camera than with a full frame/aps-c/mft. I'd love to see a test exactly like this, but with the cropfactor calculated into the focal lengths AND the f-stops, so that the sensors really all get the same amount of light! :)
We just posted a new sensor size comparison where we did some tests using equivalent apertures across the different formats. Would love to hear what you think! th-cam.com/video/aQH-LVZwahk/w-d-xo.html
Very biased test! You compared a Panasonic GH5 introduced in Jan 2017 as video camera and a still camera as an after thought to more modern technology; therefore, the images are going to be better. Try it with an Olympus E-M1 Mark III and you would have gotten a different results. That sarcastic laugh gave away your prejudiced opinion immediately when you mention Micro 4/3. Sorry I wasted my time watching your useless video.
Just posted a new format comparison where we used the Olympus E-M1 III like you suggested! Would love to hear what you think: th-cam.com/video/aQH-LVZwahk/w-d-xo.html
This is where I wish portable drones had larger sensors (though I guess size is a limitation in the sky!). The largest sensor on a DJI folding drone is a four thirds and will be prone to graining in high contrast situations. I guess it is a pay off between amazingly unique composition and sheer quality.
Might have been worth while having an A7III in the test too... I think the huge drop in IQ between the A7rVI and the APS-C/M43 cameras had as much to do with the big drop in resolution as it did sensor size.... the A7III would made for a more interesting comparison for the impact of sensor size..... Similar to the X1D2 to A7RVI comparison where much of the difference was obviously the size of sensor (and image processing)
The on-screen images do not match your commentary. That's probably because of TH-cam issues. The Sony A6600 is the clear winner here. 90 percent of the performance for 10 percent of the price. Even the bargain basement A6000 has the same sensor. I have been using an A6300 for years, and I'm always impressed at what it can do.
What video did you watch? The "big difference" between MF and the Sony FF was when the image was over/underexposed. Exposed properly, the difference would be minimal. There was however a huge difference between FF and APS-C / MFT.
Steve McKenzie I felt that in the night city shot, there was quite a difference between MF and FF. I thought that the colours were much better than the Sony. On the indoor tests, I think the gap narrowed though.
This was a poorly thought out comparison. You had one of the best medium format cameras but so so APSC and micro 4/3 cameras and lenses. I have seen large prints of Olympus em1 mark2 photos that had amazing detail. You could have shot an Olympus in HDR. You also chose a scene that had a high dynamic range, and you know crop sensor cameras struggle in that environment. The bias in this comparison is obvious. Guess that's why you are called the slanted lens.
the video title suggests it's about sensor size, not features like HDR mode. While I agree that M43 is good enough for professional work, a medium format of the same generation will always deliver more usable information. If you know what you are doing, you don't need anything more than m43 though. This video is for clicks as it is such a sensitive topic it would be a bad business decision to avoid it haha. I shoot professional food/product (studio environment) with Olympus and Panasonic. I used to be a Sony shooter. I have a bias toward m43 because of their fun factor but I am not biased when it comes to specs. Artistic knowledge > Specs = professional work, which is where I find this video's suggestion that FF and MF are for "professional" work while crop is not. There are countless examples of professional work shot with a crop sensor. Spec heads usually are not artists. M43 is better in terms of specs than FF and MF from a few years ago. Professionalism is not new.
Surprised you ignore the small 2/3 sensors. Regardless of their size, they should not be dismissed. Many people actually enjoying photography more and getting great photos-often better than with huge FF or APSC cameras. I will always support the ethos from the wonderful David Thorpe (RIP) and keen user of MFT. I would say that this system is excellent and great for travel. Always, he would say to enjoy photography. Cheaper cameras and smaller sensors are just dismissed as inferior, yet they have made photography affordable to many AND more enjoyable! The people who never use them are always the first to criticise. Some amazing photos now appear merely from phones or cheap small compacts, showing that it's not the sensor at fault all the time-its the lack of skill of many users!
You shoot a dark scene and then you're surprised the bigger sensors get more detail. This video sounds like it was sponsored by large sensor camera manufacturs. No effort whatsoever to put things into context and mention that for 99,9% of people out there the smaller than medium and even full-frame format sensors are more than fine. Even for some pros who mainly shoot well-lit environments. In other words - heavily scewed review.
Just shot a new test where we also did a high-key exposure with all the cameras. Not to mention using newer and nicer crop sensor cameras--and nicer lenses across the board. Would love to hear your thoughts! th-cam.com/video/aQH-LVZwahk/w-d-xo.html
I have no experience with medium format cameras, but have read that they have shallower depth of field. Assuming this is universal for medium format cameras, wouldn't you have to use a smaller aperture on the hasselblad to get the same amount of image in focus as the full frame? It would be interesting to throw these files into photoshop and use the stylize/find edges filter on the files. This will let you verify what parts of the image are in focus on each image, to confirm whether or not they have similar fields of focus at F8. Difference between the hasselblad and a7riv seems negligible, particularly since these are suboptimal lighting conditions. Also, the A7RIV appears to be far sharper than the Hasselblad, particularly in the kitchen portrait photo. For sure the hassellblad is a letting in a weeee bit more light to give that slight advantage in color rendition and lower noise. However, both of those advantages are easily fixable in post. The A7RIV offers so many advantages to the Hasselblad thats its very difficult to justify the premium, particularly when you are just paying for a bigger sensor, and losing the speed and autofocus of the sony.
You make a lot of great points. You do need to use a smaller aperture to get the same depth of field. f4 on the medium format seems very close to 2.8 on the full frame. They are very close to one another in image quality. I feel the Hasselblad edged out the Sony slightly but you don't have a lot of features that the A7R4 comes with. Great comments. We are out testing again this week and will have more findings. With the indoor portraits the Hasselblad was slightly out of focus. That was human error. Thanks for your comments.
Wouldn’t this comparison make more sense if you had tried to take the same image with each camera - with the same depth of field? This would involve setting the m4/3 camera to f4, the apc camera to f5.6, the ff camera to f8 and the medium format camera to f11 (say). Diffraction softening would also be avoided and it would give a much more relevant “low light” comparison.
In most of the comparison images I tried but couldn't see the difference. Of course the GH5 had a lot of noise in some images. But overall it seems sensors are all pretty good these days.
large sensor allow you to have bigger pixel on your sensor.. bigger is better and better in low lights. that's it, that's why in the first years that digital camera came out, they use to tell you in the spec the size of the pixel. cause sensor size is only a part of the comparaison. you need to add pixel size, type of sensor, internal software, etc... so yes, your video is a good comparaison of the camera, but don't say it's only sensor size.... and there is the lenses quality that play a role too. cheers
Shooting them all at ISO 200 isn’t necessarily fair, as M4/3 can normally only go down to 200, whereas larger sensors can go 100 or lower, producing superior results. Although as you already concluded that bigger sensors are better in these cases then it would just separate them even more. The 16 bit colour of the hassy makes a big difference IMO. I wish there was a 16 bit FF camera
Not an accurate comparison. of course f/8 on an APS-C is going to gather less light than f/8 on FF and bigger sensors, yielding that sensor output needs to be amplified more to reach the promised exposure for a given ISO, yielding more noise. If you want to do things properly, do it with proper camera equivalences.
The Slanted Lens you’re not getting it. The f/8 on the 35mm is going to give you a shallower depth of field than the 50mm@f/8 so the images aren’t the same. If you want the exact same image, u need to use f/5.6 on the 35mm and a lower iso to get the same exposure. How sad that most viewers will take your words for granted. Not good to spread misinformation.
It would be interesting to see how this test turns out now that the GFX100S is out and Fuji has a 40megapixel X-H2 and X-T5 APS-C camera too. As sensor technology moves on, the dynamic range, color, and detail is going to keep improving. I remember going to a gallery who boasted about their 12 megapixel medium format images, that an APS-C camera would crush today. I think they paid about $25K for that camera too.
This is not a fair comparison because the amount of light hitting each sensor is not the same due to fitting the same scene in to the picture it takes a different focal length for each sensor size... This could have been compensated for by adjusting the exposure times but you'd have to calculate the amount of light per sensor area to calculate the exposure time for each camera. The differences I see in the pictures is only caused by light deprivation. You could start by getting the smallest sensor Exposed correctly then relatively calculate based on that
This is a real world application comparison. And it is a real world outcome. So if we went through the process you are suggesting then there is no reason for the comparison and you have handicapped some of the sensors.
A good video but as I scanned the replies I found some who felt you insulted their gear. I would like a second video using the Olympus Hi-Res mode, a 67 medium format film camera with portra 160, and an iphone. The 6x7 cm film would be less sharp than the Hassselblad but be equal in tonality, color and latitude. I use an Olympus OM-D E-M1 ii and carry with me the small Godox TT350 flash to compensate for m43 low light deficiency. And I would never think of printing 24 x 30 inches. As the English say, Different horses for different courses.
Interestingly I bought a 50MPX Canon 5dsr to use as a family runabout. Our studio and location based GFX50MPX - erstwhile known as 'Old Clunky' owing to its size (although in fairness not our biggest camera) does not even get into the same county let alone ball park of our GFX but surely it should be the same but it is not .So the question is what makes them different? It can't be the sensor - or at least shouldn't be. It might be the lenses - but my thoughts are is that it must be the processor. If you look at the Fuji's flagship GFX100 - it's size determines that there is a lot going on behind the sensor, heat dissipation notwithstanding there must be some serious processing going on. I am surprised that the like of Canikony do not offer two versions of their cameras in the way that Fuji does. Many pros like myself will always buy a grip - if the camera came with one permanently attached but offered a beefier resolving power of the sensor surely that would be a win? But then maybe I am not taking all the 'video' ladies and gentlemen into account. Perhaps then Canikony are concentrating too hard on this one area of hybrid camera - a one size fits all which ends up fitting no-one? Who knows but adding MPX numbers are just headlines for sales. The Sony A7RIv for instance is a good stab in the right direction and what with its pixel shifting capabilities which is far too difficult a concept in the real world of editing but it is still nowhere near the GFX50's in terms of overall quality of output which lets face it is the final printed picture?
Not wanting to nit pick, as this was entertaining, but shooting all the different formats at the same Aperture settings defeats the purpose of the test. One reason your prints were getting softer is diffraction is creeping into the crop formats, the smaller the get, the more diffraction you are getting in a wide angle lens at F8.
Don't underestimate how amazing is the Hassy glass. There should go some of the credit ,apart from the 6+ years old medium format sensor. At least in the first comparison.
Why would you use the Sony A7RIV as the FF option? It has almost medium format resolution. Wouldn't going with a 24mp FF be more representative of what's in the FF market?
Why not also take one in daylight? Feels like you set the smaller sensors up to fail. You took in a condition where bigger sensors have an advantage. I wouldn't judge the Hasselblad by its ability to shoot birds
Interesting video even if very debatable on many aspects . Mostly, the Hasselblad lens is way above the others wich would be still relevant if they were the main pro choice for the subjects but i doubt they would be . It also shows how much better a 'specialty' tool does over a jack of all trade one . I mean that when you shoot a still subject using a tripod , of course the Blad should win big time . As for post, a top noise-reduction software is a must for crop sensors. I also find a sophisticated interpolation software like OnOne Perfect resize a must have for large prints from 24mp or less sensors. My point is : when you adapt your workflow to your file, you close part of the gap in the final result. It might not still be enough for pro use but it works fine for many of us.
@@TheSlantedLens OnOne is a nice suite of modules but i currently only use the Perfect resize 10.5 wich is already a few years old. In this category , Alien Skin Blow out is supposed to be slightly more powerfull but at the risk of artefacts wich i don't see in OnOne . I first calculate the dpi from the original file to decide if it is worth it . Above 200, i won't proceed . When i do, i bring the file from my main editing software already with the right ratio for the print , tell OnOne wich target size and 300 dpi . I then check the resulting image in 'original size' to see if the details are there. I have proceed this way from a 16mp Lumix M43 G85/Lumix 42.5mm F1.7 at F4 (about 10mp cropped) and a Nikon FF 24mp D610 /Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro at F4 (about 16mp cropped) for 24x36 inches prints . Amazingly, looking very closely, the fine details are there. On the other end, it is not always the case . I wanted to do the same with a Sony Nex 5N/Meike 35mm f1.7 at F1.7 but it failed as no more details than the original where 'found' on the screen, therefore i did not print that large. This is a cheap chinese lens that i really like for its unique tonality rendering, the picture was at close range and very little is in focus. All these where shot at low iso. I don't have a hi-res camera to compair...but you do . Theorically, details can not be created but it is bluffing. I conclude that it is a great tool for occasionaly making huge prints from modest resolution system like m43 wich have great portability and versatility . It also make sense if you still like the rendering of some vintage glass on full frame as these won't usually benefit from higher res sensors. But there is more that might interest you : cropping . Let's say you take a shot with your Hasselblad at mid-distance , then the same scene with same lens but from much further... you then crop heavily for same view and use Perfect resize before print and compare...
AARRGGHH.....great job on the video, BUT it really has me in a quandary! I have a Sony A68 (APS-C) with a few Sony lenses. It has been in my closet for a long while as I find that my cellphone works well for the travels due to size and weight. Recently we booked a 4-week trip to South Africa trip for Dec 2024, during which I turn 79. Well, I got out the Sony and put on an 18-250mm lens and was surprised at how heavy it fells. So, I've been looking at P&S bridge cameras with wide-range zoom lens. I wondered what the downside would be to the 1/2.3" sensor. Well, you confirmed my fears that I could be losing a lot dynamic range and detail. I really don't think I would ever need a large print. So, do you feel that a camera like the Canon PowerShot 740 HS would be acceptable? Or, would you have another similarly priced alternative?
Show to people the split on 6:18 and ask them which is the better picture. Or the one on 8:40. Without zooming in several times, just the pictures. I bet you'll get "They are all the same" more times than you imagine ;)
An interesting test. I would have thought that the Sony would be closer to the Hasselblad than it was. Perhaps another comparison with perhaps the Fuji Medium Format as well as a Sony A7R4 rival would be interesting.
It's too bad TH-cam didn't exist in the 90's. I would love to see a comparison between medium format film, 35mm film, APS film, and 110 film done this way.
I am surprised by how soft the the hasselblad is. The difference between a phase with the HC mkii glass is night and day. You guys really should test a proper medium format system.
i cannot understand, why you shot long exposure shot with the straps still attached on the cameras, the straps were moving a lot in the wind, that means movement, shaken photos ??+
No Canon, Nikon or Fuji? Also if the lenses aren’t equal how do you compare sensors? Many APS-C and cheaper FF lenses aren’t too enough for the new 32MP APSC or FF sensors.
micro 4/3 such as the Panny G9 have world class IBIS and can create a 60 mp hi rez images by moving the sensor 8 times and combining images right in camera. the results are amazing - near medium format quality and the camera is less than a grand. - why did you not test the m4/3 that way ?
@@TheSlantedLens so looking at ADORAMA that Hassy body and (1) lens is about $ 9000 with tax included - then the average lens of that system if you want to add longer glass or a zoom is about 4500 - 5000 per lens. so the Hassy you tested with 3 lens is about 20 grand - something to factor in
I would be have been great if you also included a 24 MP FF camera into the mix. The results are actually not that surprising. But the question is: if the increase of quality justified by the increase of price. Probably a question everybody has to answer for him or herself.
Just posted a new sensor size comparison where we threw a Canon EOS R into the mix. VERY interesting results comparing the R to the Sony A7R IV. Would love to hear your thoughts! th-cam.com/video/aQH-LVZwahk/w-d-xo.html
Are Sony´s full frames all bad with the colour noise? It seems like even their aps-c sensors are better at handling noise. Also, it seemed to me like the Hasselblad, albeit being better with the city shot, was not as sharp as the a7R IV when indoors from what I can see here.
As many have said this video is useless because it does taking into account the aperture of the lens based on the sensor size. So in effect the M 43 pictures should have been at at F/4. The other problems are the lenses, the Hasselblad is a premium lens, all the other lenses shown are not lens. And in M 43 you selected the Panasonic GH5 which is not the best camera for pictures, it would have to be the G9 that end in that case you would have to shoot it using the Hi-Rez mode which generates 80 MB files and there’s plenty of detail there.You don’t have to use the same settings for each camera, you have to use the best settings for each camera. If you want to do an honest comparison then repost the video. Take care
Just posted a new test where we used really nice lenses for all the cameras, and we went with a nice new Olympus EM1 III for the M4/3 camera. Would love to hear your thoughts on the new test! th-cam.com/video/aQH-LVZwahk/w-d-xo.html
It is not just about the sensor! You reached the obvious conclusion that a bigger sensor will provide higher resolution than a smaller sensor. Duh! Several micro 4/3 cameras, such as the Panasonic G9 and Olympus EM1 Mk III offer a high resolution mode in which, for a stationary, tripod mounted shot as you have here, the sensor is incrementally moved to increase resolution. As you point out in the video, the GH5 is designed primarily for video use. In contrast, the G9 is designed more for still shooting and offers the high-res mode. Try comparing the full capabilities of each camera, e.g., sensor + firmware. This video is a total waste of time in terms of your effort to prove the obvious.
You never mention the real reason though, the photosites. The larger sensor allows for larger photosites yet still higher resolutions. APS-C and Micro 4/3 can't pack a ton of pixels into the same area and retain large photosites. This is why larger sensors offer better dynamic range. So it's only partially sensor size. Saying larger sensors offer better dynamic range, while pretty much a true statement, is an over generalization. With all that said, I want a Hasselblad.
Like film 110 is like dx size compared to 35mm , as long as you double the pixel count it absolutely matters for detail .my d850 47mp isnt a match for a 100mp sensor twice its size , but horses for courses a 100mp sensor cant process 10 frames a second , but 35mm is the standard
I really like the idea of an experiment like this but this one was executed so poorly that too many variables were introduced in the process and the results are useless. The choice of lenses seems totally random and all over the spectrum yet would have a HUGE impact on how the characteristics being critiqued are rendered. Most glaring was the odd choice to shoot everything at f8? Why not use equivalent apertures?? That particular overlook is so confounding that I question how much these guys even understand about the technical mechanics of photography
Interesting that the Hasselblad seems to have struggled getting detail in the portrait shot. All 3 of the others seemed to have more texture to the skin, but the Hasselblad seems to have struggle. Was this down to the lens/camera, or did the narrower depth of field from medium format make it harder to get in focus with the same aperture?
Hi I have a very specific request which you might be able to answer..if we compare the pixel size on a6600 sensor vs a7r4 ,a6600 is better... So does 6600 perform at least equivalent to a7r4 in same condition (looking for noise comparison)....
I would have liked to see the latest Olympus camera with the high res mode enabled. As you stated the Panasonic is geared toward video, the Olympus would be more geared to photography. And using a pro lense.
![เบิ้ล ปทุมราช - สาวสอง ( มีมี่ของอ้าย ) ft. ตาต้า,ต้องเต [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mqlMjnP08XI/mqdefault.jpg)
this video shows nothing. you don't make proper adjustments to achieve similar "looks" based upon aperture and focal length (or if you did: you didn't tell us). You don't hold yourselves to any sort of standard or metrics (you could use a "price limit" or "best that money could buy" setup for each format, or anything really but you don't). You use a 3rd-party multi-format lens on the Lumix (the Sigma 16 is designed to accomodate both APS-C and M43 and is not M43 specialized). You also use 3rd-party budget lenses on both Sony cameras (with a lens intended for full frame format being used on the APS-C camera). Also, if you are testing the formats, then you should either print them with no adjustments, or with light/shadow adjustments ONLY, so calibrating your monitor is pointless.
Not to mention you use cameras with different specialties within their formats. The Sony A7Riv is pixel-dense and sacrifices low-light capability in exchange for ample-light editing headroom and resolution. The Lumix GH5 and Sony A6600 are both primarily video cameras and for stills, especially lowlight long exposures, you would fare better with a Fujifilm APS-C and an Olympus M43 in their stead.
This wasn't scientific, this wasn't even a test, this was a waste of time and load of bullshit.
You sound like a camera sales person. Thanks for your insights.
@@TheSlantedLens What was the price difference between the lenses you compared?
@@TheSlantedLens Not in the least bit, just someone who likes science and respects the scientific method.
@@pandahero1 They used a $2700 lens on the Hasselblad, a $400 lens on the PanasonicLumix, and $300 Lenses on the Sony's.
@@TheSlantedLens YOU sound like a Manual Format camera sales person with your inaccurate and biased video.
OP would've had a stronger position if he didn't sound so bitter in the comments and accepted the reasonable criticism of his methodology.
I think calling it methodology is an insult to anyone that has actual methodology. This was just complete laziness.
Thanks for watching and thanks for your comments!
Optimal aperture should have been used for all cameras. On m4/3 it would be around f4 or less.
Good point. Thanks for watching!
Check out the new version we just posted! We shot everything at an f4 as recommended. th-cam.com/video/aQH-LVZwahk/w-d-xo.html
@A Google User Translation: "I don't like people trying to make money for the time and effort they put into creating content for my benefit."
Cool dude. Have a great life.
Meaningless review. Misunderstanding of how cameras and lenses work. The “laugh” about m43 is telling. Conflating cause and effect.
So sorry you did not like it. Thanks for letting us know how inept we are. More to come on this topic.
@@TheSlantedLens I don't think you're inept. There sounds to be a fair amount of bias and misunderstanding and the impact is the outcome is skewed-that people who don't know as much now have a notion that smaller sensors can't produce quality images. That is false. Granted, a lot of ways medium format will win but it isn't a foregone conclusion. There is a great deal of responsibility on the internet to share valuable and valid information. As someone who has also shot with everything from iPhone cameras to medium format (Fujifilm) I can say that the only people who care much about sensor size are those who don't understand cameras and, therefore, on a TH-cam channel, propagate misinformation. I have photos hanging in museums shot with m43, APS-C, and 35mm sensors at the same size you show and people gawk at the photos because they are great photos. Only a select few have asked about what I shot them on but no one ever then says "well, that's why they could have been better." There was discussion about the quality of the stars in the image-that is not related to the sensors. The gradation of the cool tones to warm tones also may not be the sensor but the lens too-another example. That isn't to say that the whole system isn't to be taken into account when buying in-it is to say that this test doesn't do any of those systems justice. Not the medium format, not 35mm, not APS-C, not m43.
@@AdrianGalli imagine getting butthurt over m43
Yeah put them all at F8 and disregard diffraction, nice job...
Thanks for watching and keep on clickin!
@@TheSlantedLens WTF even is this reply? This video is misleading garbage.
@@robertivaniszyn840 crank those numbers mate, it seems like it's the only reason such comparison could be created.
@@robertivaniszyn840 somebody is upset.... Brand Slave, perhaps?
1. Try the G9 in High Resolution mode. Sure it won't beat Medium Format but the difference will be significant.
2. The photograph is only as good as the photographer.
3. Professional use is relative, your needs are not everyone else's needs.
4. Versatility and price matter, a sacrifice on sensor size can be made intentionally.
5. It's worth acknowledging that technology will improve and offset the current test.
6. Constraints can provide a form of creative liberation, expensive & large gear can become a limiting obsession.
As far as this test which is fairly clinical in nature, I agree the results are what you expect.
I enjoyed the accuracy of the test but not so much the bias towards larger sensors.
Great comments. Thanks for your support.
The fuzzy is coming from the lens.
Very possible. Thanks for watching!
the fuzzy may be from the lens, but the noise or the lack of colour isn't.
@@deim With proper setting of the aperture and camera you can make the all images at base ISO. They shot on tripod!
Color reproduction is not that much depend on the sensor but rather on lens and processing, except using higher ISO values.
Why didn't you use the best lens Sony FF lens...Tamron 35mm 2.8 not exactly best quality
Sometimes we're limited by what's available. And the Tamron isn't bad at all, especially at f5.6. That said, lenses do matter.
That lens is pretty dang sharp.
It was the colours of the Tamron that may have been less accurate
@@davidlord9217 no.
I agree!! Most people don’t seem to notice. By the way.. this video is sponsored by Tamron (see the beginning), so that is why they partnered it with the Tamron. They should have chosen the Sony FE 35mm F1.4 or the Sigma Art F1.4 or hell.. take the Sony FE 35mm F1.8 or the Rokinon/Samyang AF 35mm F1.4. All these lenses are better than the Tamron (which is no shame as the Tamron is way cheaper). This just seems silly to me.
I am no expert. But if it comes to low light shooting with Micro Four Thirds, please let Robin Wong do the tech.
PS. The lenses you use for the GH5 is (are) a joke.
Thanks for watching. Keep on clickin!
The GH5 really shouldn't have been shot at f8 in that dusk situation. I shoot 5.6 in daylight settings. 3.5 or 4 would have been more appropriate. Throw in Topaz DeNoise AI and you have a great print sharp all the way through. Modern software makes old 6mp sensor prints look amazing at very large sizes like 40 x 60.
Great insights. Thanks for sharing!
@@TheSlantedLens
I'm a print designer and we use AI all the time to enlarge low-res photos. It works like magic.
Printing four-thirds shouldn't be a big problem.
I think this comparison is making too much out of the highlight differences. Properly exposed to the right this is a non-issue - but puts more strain on shadow recovery. In this case, putting the 4433 camera at F10, the 35mm camera at F8, the APS-C camera at F5.6 and the MFT camera at F4 would give the same DOF and exposing to the right would allow for a true comparison of what can be achieved on a tripod. Could you make a follow up video where you set the cameras to equivalent F stops and adjust either exposure time or ISO correspondingly? For a light trail image you might want to fix shutter speed and adjust ISO but for many landscapes, shutter speed on a tripod can help to improve the smaller sensors a *lot*.
Good ideas. Thanks for your thoughts and thanks for watching!
I would love to see a video comparing a $5000 Medium Format to a $50,000 Medium Format Camera.
That is an interesting idea. It would be great to compare the Phase vs Hasselblad.
On those higher resolution small sensors you were measuring lens resolution, not sensor resolution. Basically, the very, very best lenses can barely handle 120 line pairs/mm. Film photo lenses use to be around 60 lp/mm. The Hasselblad was at 94 lp/mm, the A7R4 at 133, the A6600 at 127, and the GH5 at 149. The high density has always limited APS-C lenses. Really anything over 20MP in an APS-C (118 lp/mm) is pretty is more for marketing than photography.
The A7R4 should only be compared to the X1DII with the best Sony GM lenses, not one from Tamron. The A6600 has the same problem, but the best APS-C lenses are the Sigma 18-35 and 50-100. A Sony GM or Sigma prime also. The GH-5 just wasn't going to happen. For video the image is 3840x2048...not a problem.
The low light meant the big sensors had lots of signal strength, the small sensors were starved for photons. If you had shot in studio or in daylight, the small sensors would have had a much better dynamic range.
You should have shot a MacBeth card and calibrated it in post. The color rendition is both in the lens (a strong point of the old Leicas) and in the filters on the sensor. With the random lens selection the test is pretty meaningless here.
In video cameras and in some smartphones oversampling (e.g. 4 sensor pixels for 1 image pixel) allows direct sensing of each color rather than the demosaicing algorithm of the Bayer array.
Thanks for all the insight!
The did not only a resolution test. I See also a lot of other differences in colors, tonality and noise
Lots of great points. Thanks for sharing!
"It's not the size, it's how you use it."
Guy with a small sensor size.
Jeff Duke only people with small sensors say that ;) lol 😂
Nevermind I didn’t see the bottom line!
LOL. Stating the obvious.
In this case, don't use the same F stop across different sensor sizes? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Tell it too mine wife
The only way to really compare these sensors is with a blind test. I noticed that the reviewers giggled before they discussed m. four-thirds for example, and praised the Blad like it was made in heaven and I think I saw one of the reviewers drool a little bit when he mentioned the name Hasselblad. While we would obviously expect the Blad prints to be better, the reviewers preconceptions are easily seen here. Blind tests, where the prints are laid out with no indication of what camera was used, would yield a more meaningful comparison. For a comparison more relevant to the average photographer, the prints should have all been printed at the same resolution, even if this means smaller prints, and then judged by somebody who had no idea which were which. That would be an interesting and more relevant comparison.
Some interesting thoughts. Thanks for the suggestions!
You are getting hammered in the comments and downvotes - and frankly you deserve all of them. This is the most ridiculous "comparison" I have yet to see on TH-cam and I've seen a lot of those. You're comparing pro glass to third-party consumer grade/entry-level glass. You guys are supposed to be professional photographers - you *KNOW* that lenses are as important if not more so than the sensor, right?? You're putting a medium format sensor paired with a $1100 lens up against smaller sensors using $299 lenses. It's almost like you "proved" nothing at all in regards to the sensors and everything about the quality of the glass you mount on those sensors.
The idea is to compare them and see how much difference there is. Of course the medium format would be better. The question was, how much better?
Just posted a comparison where we used high-quality lenses for all the formats (and all new cameras too!). Would love to hear your thoughts: th-cam.com/video/aQH-LVZwahk/w-d-xo.html
to have comparable result shouldnt you have different apertures as the same aperture will give different results in depth of field for example on different sensor sizes
We chose a single aperture to look at sensors. But if you want to look at different apertures take a look at this lesson: th-cam.com/video/WhEtMQXutBg/w-d-xo.html
For portraiture that is certainly true. That's one of the reasons we chose the landscape scene that we did: at that distance, with that wider angle view on each camera, the differences in depth of field are imperceptible.
@@TheSlantedLens you made the right choice. You want to compare Sensors not looks or effect of lenses
You are very correct. If they used the same f number between all shots, then this whole test is invalid. The shots are not the same. Just because its stopped down so we cannot see the difference in depth of field does not mean the shots are technically the same.
For such a test the difference is this: the depth of field is controlled by aperture size (the actual aperture size - we just set it using the f number). The size of the aperture also determines how much light can enter the camera. So if we change the aperture size and hence change the depth of field then we're also changing how much light is going in.
So if we're testing how well two cameras will perform on an identical shot, it MUST be technically identical: same field of view, same _technical_ depth of field, and same shutter speed.
To make an identical shot between two different sensor sizes one *must* change the focal length (to keep the same field of view), change the f number (to keep the aperture for depth of field), and change the ISO.
@@TheSlantedLens The look at the same aperture is different though
Properly exposed those crop and m43 sensor cameras hold up pretty well, especially considering the cost difference between them and the full frame / medium format camera and lenses!
Overall they all took nice images!
As someone who shoots Phase One, this comparison is exactly why we shoot medium format. I should point out, however, medium format also has both full frame and cropped sensors and the Hasselblad is a crop sensor and even better results come from a full frame medium format sensor.
A lot of people make the mistake of thinking medium format is about resolution. It was, back in the film days, but in the digital world it is about color depth and tonal range. The cheap medium format cameras like this Hasselblad get most of the way there, but a full frame medium format sensor gives the ultimate in good results and allowing the photographer to work the image.
Having said that, I use cameras with all sizes of sensors right down to the GoPro, and everyone of those sensors is capable of being the best sensor size for the job it is suited for. There is never a universally “best” sensor, just sensors that are best for the job in hand.
Thanks for the insight man! I totally agree with you on the last point, and I would love to get my hands on a larger sensor MF body to experience the best that digital photography has to offer.
Very good points. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment!
It’s pretty interesting to see how close the Sony a7RIV & A6600 are.
Lol subjective I guess. I saw a big difference
They were very close in parts of the testing.
I agree, in some parts they are very close.
I could definitely see the difference between the medium format & the A7R4. The difference between medium format and full frame was so much bigger then the difference between the full frame and crop sensor.
It's not because this test is nonsense. They didn't even try to make it an even playing field. This test is the equivalent of putting a new 2020 car against a used 2010.
One important factor.Hasselblad has 16 bit, Sony has 14 bit for single shoot. Gh5 has 12 bit. Sony apsc has 12bit for long exposure NR/bulb and continues mode. The same wih fuji xt3. Fuji says nothing about it, but just check the files from fuji with rawdigger software.
For m43 it was worth checking out m1mii/m1miii. You have checked the latest apsc and ff sensor application but the oldest and not best for 20 mpx m43. For image resolution, lenses have a bigger impact than the number of mpx. It's not about the type of sensor, but how you can use it.
Good points. Thanks for watching!
Didn't take into account the fact that you have to also times the aperture by 2 on micro four third sensor. Epic face-palm.lol
We are doing an equivalency test this week to explore how equivalency effects different formats.
Altough f8 will not be optimal with smaller sensor and that diffraction will not be the same, in term of light it makes perfect sense not to change the aperture regarding the format. There is no "face-palm" here. Any lens designed for micro4/3 will gather one quarter of the light collected by the equivalent lens designed for full-frame, at the same aperture. But in the meantime, a micro4/3 sensor is one quarter in surface of a full-frame one. So, at f2.8, f4, f8 or any other given aperture, both micro4/3, full-frame, APSC lens collect exactly the same amount of light PER SENSOR SURFACE. It would have made no sense to change the aperture of this test regarding to the sensor size (but OK, for diffraction and optimal sharpness, the test is flawed)
New comparison is up where we shoot with equivalent apertures like you said. Check it out! th-cam.com/video/aQH-LVZwahk/w-d-xo.html
Watching the video of your camera straps wildly waving in the wind invalidates all your testing. Random camera shake inevitable.
The wind wasn't constantly blowing.
Still was on a tripod. You mad?
Nice video, however I would have liked the Fuji MF 100MP in that row of test camera's to see the difference between the 100MP and 50MP MF.
But maybe in the future.
What should also be taken in consideration is the quality of the lense(s), but overall the point is made.
Thanks for sharing.
That would be a very interesting comparison. Thanks for the suggestion.
lenses go with the cameras though. You can hardly get away from a lens//body combo compared to another. Maybe upgrade lenses on the sony?
And I will like to see a Oly OMD E-M1 Mark III High Res shot in the same line but why to bring the latest if you can diminish the advances in technology by comparing a 3+ year old MFT against the latest from other formats, that by the way the same company Panasonic has a G9 model for the steel photographers out there instead of the video engineered GH5, so this videos are for the very unhappy TH-cam watchers or just bored out of our minds this days......
@@steveglassphotography2825 sure but when it comes to quality you can't give the camera all credit. Basically you marry glass and date a camera , so invest in good glass!!
@@ombertoyaa The MF sensor ist older than the mft sensor, I guess 2014. Fuji GFX 100 would have an new one, "high res" mode, too.
I did consider selling my Nikon gear a couple of years ago and going to medium format but the price vs reward was very hard to justify. Particularly, as I had a full set of prime and zoom lenses.
In the end, I kept my Nikon gear but bought a Fujifilm X-H1 instead (with a few lenses (I love the Fujifilm 90mm f/2)). But for studio work, I will 90% go with the D800, even though the results of the X-H1 because
1. I just like the reasurance of full frame
2. Full frame just looks more professional to the client)
3. Whilst Fujifilm lenses are great, I spent 15 years building up an amazing collection for full frame zoom and prime lenses.
So I really can't see me moving away from full frame, even though my photography is moving far more to fine art studio portraiture, where medium format does look impressive to a high paying client.
Makes total sense. When you invest in all the lenses it is hard to make a switch, especially if you are happy with the results you are getting. Keep on clickin!
Wow, never expected this difference between the Hasselblad and the FF Sony! Incredible
They are both great cameras. It really comes down to how you shoot.
They use a $2700 native lens on the Hasselblad, but can't do better than a $300 3rd-party lens on the Sony? Or even use a proper-resolution FF camera?
I am sorry, but I always hear everybody say “Lens is more important than the body”.. so why did you chose to partner the Sony A7 R IV with a mediocre lens like the Tamron 35mm f2.8?? I don’t think you went for a bad lens with the Hasselblad. Chose a lens that is worth mounting on the A7 R IV!!!
That Tamron 35mm is tack sharp!
We're a small operation and standard resource limitations have been exacerbated by COVID-19. If you want to send us a nicer 35mm lens, I'd love to reshoot.
Kenneth Merrill As I am from Europe I see some limitations in your request. But I am pretty sure there must be organizations that would love to help you out. Plus I think it is your own responsibility to create the right setup for your reviews. Apart from this video, I like your channel.
The Slanted Lens Better than the suggested Sigma or Sony f/1.4 lenses?
Interesting discussion especially around noise in smaller sensors. But they lose me when they say "M43 for only snapshots" and then these fellas go onto to show 24" prints as a comparison. That's kind of ridiculous. How many shooters even among some pros are printing 24" prints as a judge of output. I would challenge them to be able to pick out these 4 cameras on a properly exposed 11 x 14 print or even 16 x 20. I'll bet from a reasonable viewing distance they could not tell the difference.
They actually all looked pretty great in the prints. We could see the differences up close.
I agree with most of the comments here. You bill this as a sensor size comparison, but the single biggest variable in image quality is lens quality. In any event, it's near impossible to draw conclusions from any sort of test when you are changing multiple variables at the same time, other than the obvious: 1) larger sensors give better quality images, and 2) lesser quality lenses will give lesser quality images.
All true. Thanks for sharing your point of view!
Nice to see your camera straps blowing in the wind causing camera shake @ around 1:30s
Good eye. Hang in there and keep on clickin!
This is actually something I wish I had learned earlier on. It's hard to get the perfect amount of camera shake, and it's taken me a while to find the right straps with the proper width and weight to get the effect I like. Of course wind conditions affect things too, but I'm pretty happy with the results here.
Understanding that this is a sensor test but the glass in front of the sensors has A LOT to do with perceived resolution and color rendering to the sensor . But overall results are what I would have expected. Especially the Hasselblad
Mark Williams rather have a lower end camera with good glass.
Yeah, lenses do make a big difference.
The A7R IV is a modern marvel. The X1D II appears to have a sort of magenta cast to my eyes (not unlike my old 50S). Can't wait to see if the Canon R5s 90MP rumors are true. I think Fuji is going to have a difficult time justifying their bulk & price over the next 2-3 years. I loved my 50S, but the a7riv produced better (and more in-focus) images than the 50S.
Good to hear your experience and thoughts. Thanks for sharing!
What lenses did you use? Why change the color? What about pixel shift or High Res modes? Why not ETTR? So many variables not touched upon, making this comparison seem not serious at all. It would be like judging every capability of the Hasselblad by its ability do bird photography, it just wouldn't be fair
So many things to cover so little time. Can't do it all in one video. Next time!
I struggle to understand why you used a GH5 over a g9 when it comes to photos? Also, isnt Dynamic Range more tied to Pixel size and not Sensor size?
Jonathan Ormandy
Probably the Panasonic camera they had with them. Would be interesting to see what the G9 and EM1mk3 would do.
@@willrogers3702 thats my theory on the use of gh5.
Jonathan Ormandy
My friend uses a GH5 for his video business but also uses it for photos. It’s actually quite impressive, especially when you think how old it is now.
@@willrogers3702 yeah, I got one and love it, got a g9 on the way too. the Gh5 takes great photos. but, the g9 can do hi res.
We tested the cameras we could get ahold of. Next time we will do some other suggestions. Thanks for watching!
This is not a fair comparison.
Thanks for watching. Have a nice week.
Considering the price differences I think you should have gone at least for Olympus em1 mk3 for micro 4/3, for the color science is quite different. And it also has this 50mpxl res mode. I think the result would be different.
Probably would be. We will consider that on the next one. Thanks for your comment!
I see many FF camera users are getting upset here 🤣🤣 let’s be honest. I see not a BIG difference between a7r4 and a6600. Honestly I expected much image quality gap between those two different sensors, but i think i was wrong. I’m currently using A7R3. But i think I’m getting a6600 now.. 😂 however, i see big difference between MF and FF. Wow.. great job 👍🏻👍🏻
Thanks for your insights Kyo. Keep on clickin!
Would have been interesting how the 80mp Highresmodus on Lumix G9 looks vs. the others.
That would be another interesting comparison. Thanks for your comment!
This is interesting... But we should keep in mind that those are also different lenses and they allow slightly different amounts light to the sensor. Even for the same F stop number. Which also affects the result.
Good point. Agree 100%. Thanks for you insight!
A totally fair point. I wish photo lenses used the T-stop measurement like cinema does.
Right, but at f8 the differences between f-stop and t-stop arent playing a big role compared to f-stops below f2
Print calibration, profiling. For me, a couple years ago, the choice between Datacolor and X-rite was arbitrary, except. X-rite had the DNA of trusted brands from the film calibration days like MacBeth and others. And the "ColorChecker Passport". My choice was not better motivated than that. I have no complaints and they have been great at supporting me as a tiny user.
Now I see how you click on each square in the profile print, running the densitometer through a slot in a guide. I saw you do that, Jay P, and thought, "really?"
I print, set the software, run the device as a handheld scanner over lanes of squares (no clicking, no pausing) - very smooth operation. If i had to really click all those squares like that, the first time scanning would be the last time for me.
i1Studio - monitors, printer-ink-paper, projectors. Create profiles with the camera/lens/light-type with the passport and everything falls into place - color and tone. They have an app to create a "mixed profile" where you had two types of light alternating between shots, like an indoor event with outdoor light through windows. I can do about the same with the naked eye, but it takes much more time and attention.
Sharpening, contrast, dodge/burn, ..., crop, keystone, ..., artistic choices, ..., client desires, ..., retouch, ... - lots to do still and if we can reduce work elsewhere. Still remember retouching negatives.
Lots to think about. True about so much to do and not enough time.
@@TheSlantedLens - what, no time? Because of all those clicks? The fun. Of course, you have a business to run. Totally appreciated.
I don't have to earn money with it anymore. Is photography a hobby in that case? You know the definition of hobby: maximize spending while minimizing utility. No, that's not what I do, to be honest.
I am still waiting for a 6x7cm medium format sensor that I can afford.
Why do you refer to a "crop" sensor camera? Aren't they ALL crops? Medium format crop, Full-frame crop, APS-C crop, Micro Four Thirds Crop... You make it sound really snobby and pejorative. Oooh I have a Full-frame and you have a "crop"... you're missing part of the image. This is quite silly. Also, you're shooting M43 at f8? And Medium Format too?
The industry standard is usually based around a full frame camera.
@@TheSlantedLens Don't you think you should say "Full-Frame crop"? Obviously, this is a language issue, but I believe this is much more accurate.
nice test. a nice bonus would’ve been a cell phone. perhaps iphone 11 pro. just to see how computational photography stacks up. maybe next episode?
That's an interesting idea. We will add it to our list!
The Hasselblad also have a 16-bit RAW images, Sony 14bits, others probably also 14bits (for pictures), so this adds to the quality of the picture. PS: Good job on this video!
Good point! Thanks for your comment!
Hass does not use 16 bit.
Interesting comparison. The amount of difference one would see (IMO) really does depend on the use case scenario. Outside of landscape and fashion photography viewing a print is not quite so common. Under most less strenuous situations I doubt the differences would be as noticeable. If I were trying to make a living with my work I would choose the appropriate tool for the type of work I was doing. Right now I shoot apsc and it works well for my needs. However I am not trying to make a living with my work.
Totally agree. Every line of work requires a different approach.
Just the comparison I was looking for! Too bad you never mentioned how you captured the images in terms of f-stop and image crop, because that way you didn't really compare the four cameras, but really just stated that it is possible to take a cleaner image with a medium format camera than with a full frame/aps-c/mft. I'd love to see a test exactly like this, but with the cropfactor calculated into the focal lengths AND the f-stops, so that the sensors really all get the same amount of light! :)
Great suggestions. Thanks for your insight!
We just posted a new sensor size comparison where we did some tests using equivalent apertures across the different formats. Would love to hear what you think! th-cam.com/video/aQH-LVZwahk/w-d-xo.html
Very biased test! You compared a Panasonic GH5 introduced in Jan 2017 as video camera and a still camera as an after thought to more modern technology; therefore, the images are going to be better. Try it with an Olympus E-M1 Mark III and you would have gotten a different results. That sarcastic laugh gave away your prejudiced opinion immediately when you mention Micro 4/3. Sorry I wasted my time watching your useless video.
Good suggestion. Thanks for watching.
You do know M43 to this day all use the same sensor that's in that GH5? Nice try though. You want them to shoot jpeg next time, right?
Just posted a new format comparison where we used the Olympus E-M1 III like you suggested! Would love to hear what you think: th-cam.com/video/aQH-LVZwahk/w-d-xo.html
This is where I wish portable drones had larger sensors (though I guess size is a limitation in the sky!). The largest sensor on a DJI folding drone is a four thirds and will be prone to graining in high contrast situations. I guess it is a pay off between amazingly unique composition and sheer quality.
I have to compromise by using ETTR!
Eventually they will get there!
Wow, huge difference. Would love to see the Xt3/Xt4 in the mix.
That would be interesting. Thanks for watching!
You kind of did.
Might have been worth while having an A7III in the test too... I think the huge drop in IQ between the A7rVI and the APS-C/M43 cameras had as much to do with the big drop in resolution as it did sensor size.... the A7III would made for a more interesting comparison for the impact of sensor size..... Similar to the X1D2 to A7RVI comparison where much of the difference was obviously the size of sensor (and image processing)
Good points. Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching!
The on-screen images do not match your commentary. That's probably because of TH-cam issues. The Sony A6600 is the clear winner here. 90 percent of the performance for 10 percent of the price. Even the bargain basement A6000 has the same sensor. I have been using an A6300 for years, and I'm always impressed at what it can do.
True, it's a great camera. No doubt about it. So glad it is working for you.
I would have liked to see the Fuji shown ! I think Sony a7r4 definitely hit above it’s price point. Super cool video though :)
Fair enough! Good thoughts. Thanks for your comment!
The Sony doesnt hit above its price point. I see a lot of differences between mf and ff (tonality, grain,..).
Medium format to full frame - big difference. Full frame to Apc - small difference, and micro four thirds loser. Lol
Yeah, it was interesting to see the differences.
What video did you watch? The "big difference" between MF and the Sony FF was when the image was over/underexposed. Exposed properly, the difference would be minimal. There was however a huge difference between FF and APS-C / MFT.
Steve McKenzie
I felt that in the night city shot, there was quite a difference between MF and FF.
I thought that the colours were much better than the Sony.
On the indoor tests, I think the gap narrowed though.
Steve McKenzie I’m sure that you are the guy with FF lol
You must own a FF. Next time they need to test a Fuji GFX 50r. Do make it even more obvious.
GFX-100 Please :)
We have it on our list for next time!
This was a poorly thought out comparison. You had one of the best medium format cameras but so so APSC and micro 4/3 cameras and lenses. I have seen large prints of Olympus em1 mark2 photos that had amazing detail. You could have shot an Olympus in HDR. You also chose a scene that had a high dynamic range, and you know crop sensor cameras struggle in that environment. The bias in this comparison is obvious. Guess that's why you are called the slanted lens.
We are limited with the cameras we can get ahold of, especially at this time with Covid-19.
the video title suggests it's about sensor size, not features like HDR mode. While I agree that M43 is good enough for professional work, a medium format of the same generation will always deliver more usable information. If you know what you are doing, you don't need anything more than m43 though. This video is for clicks as it is such a sensitive topic it would be a bad business decision to avoid it haha.
I shoot professional food/product (studio environment) with Olympus and Panasonic. I used to be a Sony shooter. I have a bias toward m43 because of their fun factor but I am not biased when it comes to specs. Artistic knowledge > Specs = professional work, which is where I find this video's suggestion that FF and MF are for "professional" work while crop is not. There are countless examples of professional work shot with a crop sensor. Spec heads usually are not artists. M43 is better in terms of specs than FF and MF from a few years ago. Professionalism is not new.
Surprised you ignore the small 2/3 sensors. Regardless of their size, they should not be dismissed. Many people actually enjoying photography more and getting great photos-often better than with huge FF or APSC cameras. I will always support the ethos from the wonderful David Thorpe (RIP) and keen user of MFT. I would say that this system is excellent and great for travel. Always, he would say to enjoy photography. Cheaper cameras and smaller sensors are just dismissed as inferior, yet they have made photography affordable to many AND more enjoyable! The people who never use them are always the first to criticise. Some amazing photos now appear merely from phones or cheap small compacts, showing that it's not the sensor at fault all the time-its the lack of skill of many users!
Great points. Thanks for sharing!
You shoot a dark scene and then you're surprised the bigger sensors get more detail. This video sounds like it was sponsored by large sensor camera manufacturs. No effort whatsoever to put things into context and mention that for 99,9% of people out there the smaller than medium and even full-frame format sensors are more than fine. Even for some pros who mainly shoot well-lit environments. In other words - heavily scewed review.
No camera companies sponsored this video. Thanks for watching!
@@TheSlantedLens The effort you put (read: didn't put) into that reply tells me something is nonetheless fishy here.
Just shot a new test where we also did a high-key exposure with all the cameras. Not to mention using newer and nicer crop sensor cameras--and nicer lenses across the board. Would love to hear your thoughts! th-cam.com/video/aQH-LVZwahk/w-d-xo.html
I have no experience with medium format cameras, but have read that they have shallower depth of field. Assuming this is universal for medium format cameras, wouldn't you have to use a smaller aperture on the hasselblad to get the same amount of image in focus as the full frame?
It would be interesting to throw these files into photoshop and use the stylize/find edges filter on the files. This will let you verify what parts of the image are in focus on each image, to confirm whether or not they have similar fields of focus at F8.
Difference between the hasselblad and a7riv seems negligible, particularly since these are suboptimal lighting conditions. Also, the A7RIV appears to be far sharper than the Hasselblad, particularly in the kitchen portrait photo. For sure the hassellblad is a letting in a weeee bit more light to give that slight advantage in color rendition and lower noise. However, both of those advantages are easily fixable in post. The A7RIV offers so many advantages to the Hasselblad thats its very difficult to justify the premium, particularly when you are just paying for a bigger sensor, and losing the speed and autofocus of the sony.
You make a lot of great points. You do need to use a smaller aperture to get the same depth of field. f4 on the medium format seems very close to 2.8 on the full frame. They are very close to one another in image quality. I feel the Hasselblad edged out the Sony slightly but you don't have a lot of features that the A7R4 comes with. Great comments. We are out testing again this week and will have more findings. With the indoor portraits the Hasselblad was slightly out of focus. That was human error. Thanks for your comments.
Wouldn’t this comparison make more sense if you had tried to take the same image with each camera - with the same depth of field? This would involve setting the m4/3 camera to f4, the apc camera to f5.6, the ff camera to f8 and the medium format camera to f11 (say). Diffraction softening would also be avoided and it would give a much more relevant “low light” comparison.
Great points. Thanks for sharing!
In most of the comparison images I tried but couldn't see the difference. Of course the GH5 had a lot of noise in some images. But overall it seems sensors are all pretty good these days.
Totally agree. Cameras are so advanced. Thanks for watching!
large sensor allow you to have bigger pixel on your sensor.. bigger is better and better in low lights. that's it, that's why in the first years that digital camera came out, they use to tell you in the spec the size of the pixel. cause sensor size is only a part of the comparaison. you need to add pixel size, type of sensor, internal software, etc... so yes, your video is a good comparaison of the camera, but don't say it's only sensor size.... and there is the lenses quality that play a role too.
cheers
All good points. Next time! Thanks for watching!
Shooting them all at ISO 200 isn’t necessarily fair, as M4/3 can normally only go down to 200, whereas larger sensors can go 100 or lower, producing superior results. Although as you already concluded that bigger sensors are better in these cases then it would just separate them even more. The 16 bit colour of the hassy makes a big difference IMO. I wish there was a 16 bit FF camera
I am sure that will be coming.
The Slanted Lens 🤞🤞🤞
Not an accurate comparison. of course f/8 on an APS-C is going to gather less light than f/8 on FF and bigger sensors, yielding that sensor output needs to be amplified more to reach the promised exposure for a given ISO, yielding more noise. If you want to do things properly, do it with proper camera equivalences.
You are proving out point. The larger sensor gives you more light and thus gives you a better image. It's a reality.
Zero difference would probably never happen.
The Slanted Lens you’re not getting it. The f/8 on the 35mm is going to give you a shallower depth of field than the 50mm@f/8 so the images aren’t the same. If you want the exact same image, u need to use f/5.6 on the 35mm and a lower iso to get the same exposure. How sad that most viewers will take your words for granted. Not good to spread misinformation.
It would be interesting to see how this test turns out now that the GFX100S is out and Fuji has a 40megapixel X-H2 and X-T5 APS-C camera too. As sensor technology moves on, the dynamic range, color, and detail is going to keep improving. I remember going to a gallery who boasted about their 12 megapixel medium format images, that an APS-C camera would crush today. I think they paid about $25K for that camera too.
Yeah, it is amazing how technology is improving so much and so quickly!
Aren’t the star burst point amounts determined by how many blades the aperture of the lens has? Really enjoyed this
Yes they are
Yes, that's true. We really liked the clean look of the Hasselblad.
This is not a fair comparison because the amount of light hitting each sensor is not the same due to fitting the same scene in to the picture it takes a different focal length for each sensor size... This could have been compensated for by adjusting the exposure times but you'd have to calculate the amount of light per sensor area to calculate the exposure time for each camera. The differences I see in the pictures is only caused by light deprivation. You could start by getting the smallest sensor Exposed correctly then relatively calculate based on that
This is a real world application comparison. And it is a real world outcome. So if we went through the process you are suggesting then there is no reason for the comparison and you have handicapped some of the sensors.
this just tells us that full frame is superior to crop censor . i love my 5dmark4
And medium format is superior to full frame. I love my fuji GFX
They each have their uses. Thanks for watching!
Comparing all of those at f8 was not fair. Micro four thirds lenses are best around f4, full frame usually f8 and medium format probably larger.
Point well taken. Thanks for watching!
A good video but as I scanned the replies I found some who felt you insulted their gear. I would like a second video using the Olympus Hi-Res mode, a 67 medium format film camera with portra 160, and an iphone. The 6x7 cm film would be less sharp than the Hassselblad but be equal in tonality, color and latitude.
I use an Olympus OM-D E-M1 ii and carry with me the small Godox TT350 flash to compensate for m43 low light deficiency. And I would never think of printing 24 x 30 inches. As the English say, Different horses for different courses.
Great comments and suggestions. Thanks for sharing.
At 3:53 , they Put Medium Format instead of Full Frame on the Sensor Size lol.... I wish 7RiV would be Medium Format at that price hahaha
That would be nice. Thanks for watching!
Interestingly I bought a 50MPX Canon 5dsr to use as a family runabout. Our studio and location based GFX50MPX - erstwhile known as 'Old Clunky' owing to its size (although in fairness not our biggest camera) does not even get into the same county let alone ball park of our GFX but surely it should be the same but it is not .So the question is what makes them different? It can't be the sensor - or at least shouldn't be. It might be the lenses - but my thoughts are is that it must be the processor.
If you look at the Fuji's flagship GFX100 - it's size determines that there is a lot going on behind the sensor, heat dissipation notwithstanding there must be some serious processing going on. I am surprised that the like of Canikony do not offer two versions of their cameras in the way that Fuji does. Many pros like myself will always buy a grip - if the camera came with one permanently attached but offered a beefier resolving power of the sensor surely that would be a win? But then maybe I am not taking all the 'video' ladies and gentlemen into account. Perhaps then Canikony are concentrating too hard on this one area of hybrid camera - a one size fits all which ends up fitting no-one? Who knows but adding MPX numbers are just headlines for sales. The Sony A7RIv for instance is a good stab in the right direction and what with its pixel shifting capabilities which is far too difficult a concept in the real world of editing but it is still nowhere near the GFX50's in terms of overall quality of output which lets face it is the final printed picture?
Lot's of great insights. Thanks for watching and thanks for sharing.
Not wanting to nit pick, as this was entertaining, but shooting all the different formats at the same Aperture settings defeats the purpose of the test. One reason your prints were getting softer is diffraction is creeping into the crop formats, the smaller the get, the more diffraction you are getting in a wide angle lens at F8.
Great points. Thanks for watching.
Cool Video, made me want a medium format camera, but out of my budget....
We know what you mean. You can still get great images with the other cameras. Keep on clickin!
Don't underestimate how amazing is the Hassy glass. There should go some of the credit ,apart from the 6+ years old medium format sensor. At least in the first comparison.
True that. Thanks for your insight.
Why would you use the Sony A7RIV as the FF option? It has almost medium format resolution. Wouldn't going with a 24mp FF be more representative of what's in the FF market?
We wanted to see if it would test out the same as the medium format. Thanks for watching!
Why not also take one in daylight? Feels like you set the smaller sensors up to fail. You took in a condition where bigger sensors have an advantage. I wouldn't judge the Hasselblad by its ability to shoot birds
That is a good suggestion. Next time!
I would love to see a video about that color matching procedure you introduced, maybe you already have it published?
You can learn more about color management on Datacolor’s website: www.datacolor.com/photography-design/academy/blog/
Interesting video even if very debatable on many aspects . Mostly, the Hasselblad lens is way above the others wich would be still relevant if they were the main pro choice for the subjects but i doubt they would be . It also shows how much better a 'specialty' tool does over a jack of all trade one . I mean that when you shoot a still subject using a tripod , of course the Blad should win big time .
As for post, a top noise-reduction software is a must for crop sensors. I also find a sophisticated interpolation software like OnOne Perfect resize a must have for large prints from 24mp or less sensors. My point is : when you adapt your workflow to your file, you close part of the gap in the final result. It might not still be enough for pro use but it works fine for many of us.
I am going to look into OnOne it sounds like a great solution. Thanks for your comments.
@@TheSlantedLens OnOne is a nice suite of modules but i currently only use the Perfect resize 10.5 wich is already a few years old. In this category , Alien Skin Blow out is supposed to be slightly more powerfull but at the risk of artefacts wich i don't see in OnOne .
I first calculate the dpi from the original file to decide if it is worth it . Above 200, i won't proceed . When i do, i bring the file from my main editing software already with the right ratio for the print , tell OnOne wich target size and 300 dpi . I then check the resulting image in 'original size' to see if the details are there. I have proceed this way from a 16mp Lumix M43 G85/Lumix 42.5mm F1.7 at F4 (about 10mp cropped) and a Nikon FF 24mp D610 /Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro at F4 (about 16mp cropped) for 24x36 inches prints . Amazingly, looking very closely, the fine details are there.
On the other end, it is not always the case . I wanted to do the same with a Sony Nex 5N/Meike 35mm f1.7 at F1.7 but it failed as no more details than the original where 'found' on the screen, therefore i did not print that large. This is a cheap chinese lens that i really like for its unique tonality rendering, the picture was at close range and very little is in focus. All these where shot at low iso.
I don't have a hi-res camera to compair...but you do . Theorically, details can not be created but it is bluffing. I conclude that it is a great tool for occasionaly making huge prints from modest resolution system like m43 wich have great portability and versatility . It also make sense if you still like the rendering of some vintage glass on full frame as these won't usually benefit from higher res sensors.
But there is more that might interest you : cropping . Let's say you take a shot with your Hasselblad at mid-distance , then the same scene with same lens but from much further... you then crop heavily for same view and use Perfect resize before print and compare...
AARRGGHH.....great job on the video, BUT it really has me in a quandary! I have a Sony A68 (APS-C) with a few Sony lenses. It has been in my closet for a long while as I find that my cellphone works well for the travels due to size and weight. Recently we booked a 4-week trip to South Africa trip for Dec 2024, during which I turn 79. Well, I got out the Sony and put on an 18-250mm lens and was surprised at how heavy it fells. So, I've been looking at P&S bridge cameras with wide-range zoom lens. I wondered what the downside would be to the 1/2.3" sensor. Well, you confirmed my fears that I could be losing a lot dynamic range and detail. I really don't think I would ever need a large print. So, do you feel that a camera like the Canon PowerShot 740 HS would be acceptable? Or, would you have another similarly priced alternative?
Show to people the split on 6:18 and ask them which is the better picture. Or the one on 8:40. Without zooming in several times, just the pictures. I bet you'll get "They are all the same" more times than you imagine ;)
Yes, true. You have to look really close to see the differences.
An interesting test.
I would have thought that the Sony would be closer to the Hasselblad than it was.
Perhaps another comparison with perhaps the Fuji Medium Format as well as a Sony A7R4 rival would be interesting.
Thanks for the suggestion. I have added it to out list.
Sensorsize matters, plus 16bit color resolution vs 14bit on the Sony.
It's too bad TH-cam didn't exist in the 90's. I would love to see a comparison between medium format film, 35mm film, APS film, and 110 film done this way.
That would be interesting. Something to think about.
I am surprised by how soft the the hasselblad is. The difference between a phase with the HC mkii glass is night and day. You guys really should test a proper medium format system.
So many options out there. Another time.
i cannot understand, why you shot long exposure shot with the straps still attached on the cameras, the straps were moving a lot in the wind, that means movement, shaken photos ??+
Good point we are out shooting another one today and will remove the straps. Thanks
No Canon, Nikon or Fuji? Also if the lenses aren’t equal how do you compare sensors? Many APS-C and cheaper FF lenses aren’t too enough for the new 32MP APSC or FF sensors.
Good points. Next time! Thanks for watching!
micro 4/3 such as the Panny G9 have world class IBIS and can create a 60 mp hi rez images by moving the sensor 8 times and combining images right in camera. the results are amazing - near medium format quality and the camera is less than a grand. - why did you not test the m4/3 that way ?
not to mention about 1/8 the cost and 1/4 the weight of the Hassy
That image stacking is a whole different thing. Good thought though.
Yeah the cost issue is definitely a reality.
@@TheSlantedLens so looking at ADORAMA that Hassy body and (1) lens is about $ 9000 with tax included - then the average lens of that system if you want to add longer glass or a zoom is about 4500 - 5000 per lens. so the Hassy you tested with 3 lens is about 20 grand - something to factor in
You should add the FUji small medium format and a 1" sensor comera (like rx10iv) to get the full range.
Another time. Thanks for the suggestion!
@@TheSlantedLens Also if you want an alternate source for large print I have an HP3200ps and I am in the Los Angeles area.
The Hasselblad looks so goooooooooooooooooooooooood 🤩
Yep it does. If you can afford it, go for it!
@@TheSlantedLens Not realy a point and shoot, fast focusing monster, is it. ;-) More a niche kind of product.
valcked Ding Ding Ding!
I would be have been great if you also included a 24 MP FF camera into the mix. The results are actually not that surprising. But the question is: if the increase of quality justified by the increase of price. Probably a question everybody has to answer for him or herself.
Exactly. Something to think about when making a purchase.
Just posted a new sensor size comparison where we threw a Canon EOS R into the mix. VERY interesting results comparing the R to the Sony A7R IV. Would love to hear your thoughts! th-cam.com/video/aQH-LVZwahk/w-d-xo.html
@@kennethcmerrill Nice :D
Are Sony´s full frames all bad with the colour noise? It seems like even their aps-c sensors are better at handling noise. Also, it seemed to me like the Hasselblad, albeit being better with the city shot, was not as sharp as the a7R IV when indoors from what I can see here.
It may have been the camera person.
As many have said this video is useless because it does taking into account the aperture of the lens based on the sensor size. So in effect the M 43 pictures should have been at at F/4. The other problems are the lenses, the Hasselblad is a premium lens, all the other lenses shown are not lens. And in M 43 you selected the Panasonic GH5 which is not the best camera for pictures, it would have to be the G9 that end in that case you would have to shoot it using the Hi-Rez mode which generates 80 MB files and there’s plenty of detail there.You don’t have to use the same settings for each camera, you have to use the best settings for each camera. If you want to do an honest comparison then repost the video. Take care
Great points. Thanks for watching!
Just posted a new test where we used really nice lenses for all the cameras, and we went with a nice new Olympus EM1 III for the M4/3 camera. Would love to hear your thoughts on the new test! th-cam.com/video/aQH-LVZwahk/w-d-xo.html
It is not just about the sensor! You reached the obvious conclusion that a bigger sensor will provide higher resolution than a smaller sensor. Duh! Several micro 4/3 cameras, such as the Panasonic G9 and Olympus EM1 Mk III offer a high resolution mode in which, for a stationary, tripod mounted shot as you have here, the sensor is incrementally moved to increase resolution. As you point out in the video, the GH5 is designed primarily for video use. In contrast, the G9 is designed more for still shooting and offers the high-res mode. Try comparing the full capabilities of each camera, e.g., sensor + firmware. This video is a total waste of time in terms of your effort to prove the obvious.
You might like this one better: th-cam.com/video/aQH-LVZwahk/w-d-xo.html
You never mention the real reason though, the photosites. The larger sensor allows for larger photosites yet still higher resolutions. APS-C and Micro 4/3 can't pack a ton of pixels into the same area and retain large photosites. This is why larger sensors offer better dynamic range. So it's only partially sensor size. Saying larger sensors offer better dynamic range, while pretty much a true statement, is an over generalization.
With all that said, I want a Hasselblad.
LOL. True all of that. Thanks for sharing!
I'm sorry but you're wrong.
m.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise
Like film 110 is like dx size compared to 35mm , as long as you double the pixel count it absolutely matters for detail .my d850 47mp isnt a match for a 100mp sensor twice its size , but horses for courses a 100mp sensor cant process 10 frames a second , but 35mm is the standard
Good points. Thanks for sharing!
I really like the idea of an experiment like this but this one was executed so poorly that too many variables were introduced in the process and the results are useless. The choice of lenses seems totally random and all over the spectrum yet would have a HUGE impact on how the characteristics being critiqued are rendered. Most glaring was the odd choice to shoot everything at f8? Why not use equivalent apertures?? That particular overlook is so confounding that I question how much these guys even understand about the technical mechanics of photography
You might like this followup video: th-cam.com/video/aQH-LVZwahk/w-d-xo.html
Interesting that the Hasselblad seems to have struggled getting detail in the portrait shot. All 3 of the others seemed to have more texture to the skin, but the Hasselblad seems to have struggle. Was this down to the lens/camera, or did the narrower depth of field from medium format make it harder to get in focus with the same aperture?
Not sure. Something to check into. Thanks!
Hi I have a very specific request which you might be able to answer..if we compare the pixel size on a6600 sensor vs a7r4 ,a6600 is better... So does 6600 perform at least equivalent to a7r4 in same condition (looking for noise comparison)....
We found that the a7R IV was better when it came to noise.
Since many are requesting other medium format comparisons, please add Leica S3 to the mix if you can. Different sensor to the others I hear.
Great suggestion. I have added it to the list.
It matters, but you won't likely see the difference until you have to print a high resolution image.
Good point. Thanks for sharing your comment!
I would have liked to see the latest Olympus camera with the high res mode enabled. As you stated the Panasonic is geared toward video, the Olympus would be more geared to photography. And using a pro lense.
Good point. I added it to our list for next time.