I don’t see many people complaining about phone images. Those sensors are 100x smaller than m43. For me it’s the size that’s kept me here. However influencers always having to promote the latest and greatest sometimes affected my thoughts on m43. I’ve left m43 a few times and never discovered the holy grail of FF that people lead you to believe exist.
I used mft for about two years a few years ago before moving to FF. I recently came back, and I'm happy with it. Yes there's more noise and less pixels, but I can also fit my whole kit into a small shoulder bag and spent less money on it. Also, before coming back, I shot with a Canon R6 and then an R5. I expected to be really blown away by having 2.25x the pixel count, but I never felt like the images were better in any real way.
This is my impression also. Given the 4x sensor area and great sounding specs, not to mention the cost of a new FF setup, you expect so much more. I thought that surely the high megapixel count would be really useful for cropping, but I was again a little bit disappointed since that sometimes showed up the limitations of the lenses, but anyway, I rarely cropped by much. Truth is that sometimes "good enough" is just good enough, and if you get that with MFT, then that's fine. I know I do... I also like APS-C and have had a couple of great cameras with that crop factor too (and still use them).
I shoot with oly 10 ii and the Canon EOS R and R6. And the Canon are way better. No complain. The R6 is absolut perfect for low light and with the right lens realy sharp. You need L glass or equal. The dynamic range is on the Canon better. MFT = 12 bit. Fullframe = 14 bit. Than the advantage of the bigger pixel size. For my professionell work i would never choose MFT for photograph. And for me its not about depth of field.
What definition is 35mm Full Frame???? Any camera thats captures an image onto its sensor is filling the capture onto its sensor fully??? however, what about the 6 by six . or two and a quarter square cameras, Medium Format, its a marketing con. LOL
@@esterix101 I don't think anyone here is arguing that the R5 isn't a great camera, or that it can't create sharp images, although sharp is more the lens, right? What I said was that going from 20mp to 45mp I was expected to be 'wowed' by the images, to see some magic that I hadn't been able to get with the R6. That didn't happen, the images looked about the same. YES, I could crop more without losing details, but I couldn't realistically crop the 1.5x that the pixel count would suggest because I would start to see the limitations of my lens(on the R6 I'd see the limitations of the resolution first, ie pixelation). What I realize in hindsight is I would have been much happier is I'd taken the money I spent upgrading to the R5 and instead spent it on better glass.
Congrats on 1k! One downside of Micro Four Thirds is the increase I notice in my Gear Acquisition Syndrome 😅 the prices for some lenses are just insane. Same with older cameras. But it’s also a positive: anyone can pick one up and start shooting on a low budget.🎉
Great video! I've found that the Olympus F1.2 Pro lenses (17mm, 25mm, 45mm) are quite good for achieving shallow depth of field on MFT cameras, and the creamy boheh is beautiful. The 75mm F1.8 is also a wonderful (and compact) lens for shallow depth of field, and is well suited for low light events and (some) sports.
You were spot on at the end when you made the point that full frame only became the "standard" format because of 35mm film. And if 35mm was considered large enough back when colour transparency was typically 100 ISO (200 ISO max), why is MFT deemed to be too noisy now? Photographers in the film era would have been totally overjoyed with the low light capabilities of MFT. As for blurred backgrounds. You can get very nice backgrounds with the f1.7 primes at head and shoulders distance, which is when you usually want them. You also touched on the increased DOF being a positive. This is rarely mentioned but it's an important point since more DOF for the same aperture can negate the low light advantages of full frame. Here's why: if you want more of your scene in focus (which I almost always do) then my MFT's f4 gives me "f8 of full frame DOF" which therefore reduces my ISO by two stops which therefore produces the exact same amount of noise. So, given all this, for most people, there really isn't any reason to be carrying all that heavy clunky oversized outdated full frame kit any more!
So two things here on mft low light performance. Stuff being acceptable or even exceptional in the past doesn't really mean acceptable now. I still remember when 480p was considered hq on youtube, and the reason was because in recent memory people did not have tvs that had much resolution beyond that, let alone online streaming. While there are people who debate the need for 4k as opposed to 1080, especially on youtube, I don't hear anyone arguing for 480p because at this point it just looks bad given what we're used to. When it comes to grain, if you look at photos from old magazines you will see a crapload of grain but that's okay because a lot of genres of photography just had it. Second, chromatic noise from a digital sensor looks awful. If I take a photo in black and white, even on a digital camera that can take color photos, and crank up the iso yeah it looks noisy but its not something that I actually think makes the image look that bad, it has a charm of its own. When your shadows start looking purpley that would bother me. When I was shopping for my first personal camera, I never considered mft and I regret not looking into it more before buying, but given that I really like night photography I am glad I went full frame.
@@Carthodon There's nothing wrong with the quality of 35mm film at lower ISOs - look at past issues of National Geographic. NG photographers didn't feel it necessary to shoot medium format; not when doing so would compromise the size and weight savings that using 35mm gave them. It's about what is sufficient and MFT is more than sufficient for most people's uses. So while full frame is better in low light, it's a compromise in terms of portability. And the only reason why FF is the size that it is, is that it's a carry over from the old days; and there's really no logical reason for it now that sensors are so good.
@@AlexSegre So I remember past issues of National Geographic, and I've seen the current online version. It is a world of difference. Currently every photo, and I mean every photo, is extremely sharp. In the past when there was no alternative then yeah you looked past the grain. Now it is seen as an artistic choice, but not one which will go unnoticed by most people.
@@Carthodon Like Steve McCurry's Afghan girl, shot on Kodachrome 64 and featured on the cover in 1985? Most people wouldn't notice that it wasn't shot on one of today's digital cameras. The point is, 35mm was deemed sufficiently good quality for NG's photography, which it spent handsomely for. They didn't require their photographers - who were among the world's best - to cart around medium format cameras and lenses.
@@AlexSegre The reason they didn't demand medium format cameras is because they are completely impractical for a lot of photography especially if you're trying to rough it. Hell, I've seen photos with 110 because that was the best they could possibly get and they'd rather have something over nothing especially in a situation where people died if they got caught with a camera. That doesn't mean that now, in the current day, when we have that image quality that people without it aren't going to be at an immense disadvantage. When you as an institution are getting thousands of photos with very good composition, the first you are going to toss out are those with subpar image quality. What was state of the art in 1985 is not anymore for image quality and as a result the 1985 state of the art does look worse, just like 480p looks worse to our eyes now for video. And none of this addresses the issue with digital sensors which have chroma noise which looks just bad, because it shifts the actual color of the whole image rather than just create grain. Avoiding that situation is a good deal harder with mft.
Love having discovered MFT and expect to stick with it. Just got a Lumix GX85. I hope OM brings out a fresh PEN PL model. Range finder styles to keep things low key. The everyday/travel is what we need and this is perfect for that as you mentioned. I hope they reverse the trend of making the body sizes ever larger. That is what would end this system before anything else.
First video of yours I have ever seen, and I like you! I like how honest and to the point you are. Like and sub, for sure. When I read or hear about people nit picking this or that camera format, I can't but help but remember the digital cameras I started out with, and how primitive they were by today's standards, with very low MPixel counts, very few focus points, sensors that were pretty noisy and didn't have great dynamic range. But you know, they were still such fun to use, and I got some absolutely stunning images with that old tech, and these images hold up fine today - because they were interesting images to begin with. Just because the "numbers" or "specs" would be considered laughable by today's standards, some of the results were stunning. (When it comes to taking stunning photos, I'm no better today with new tech than I was back then with caveman digital equipment). There's really no excuse for down-talking any modern camera. These things are so incredibly fantastic compared to digital cameras from even 20 years ago that it's almost incomprehensible. That's not to say MFT, or camera brands and theirbizarre camera marketing decisions (product segmentation!) should not be criticised. Instead I'm saying that ... 25 MP? No problem. 20 MP? No problem. 16 MP? Kit lens? No problem! Just get out, have fun, shoot lots and lots, learn the "art" of photography, and you're doing it right. Please, put down the marketing pamphlet, haha. The analogy that comes to mind is those extremely old blues recordings from the early 1900s, some guy with a beat up guitar that was missing a string or two, recording on the worst microphone ever, and yet some of that music is incredibly stunning to listen to today, in spite of the crappy guitar, all the background noise, and awful recording equipment. Taking a great photograph isn't all that different. Cheers, and all the best to you.
Congrats on reaching 1k subs. My G9 arrived earlier this week from Japan total cost incl delivery, customs and VAT less than 600Eur shutter count was less than 100. Delighted with it so far the AF is so much better than the GH5. I have some ideas for short films so may keep the GH5 yet. To your points any system or format is a compromise, I mainly shoot Sony and Lumix (with a little Ricoh/Pentax on the side) and I find FF and MFT compliment each other very well. But there isn’t the gulf in image quality some YT channels would have you believe, honestly you’d have to be printing larger than A1 to see a real life difference. Also if you are the kind of photographer that wants to dabble in different genres of photography nothing quite caters to that like MFT certainly not when you consider size and cost.
Actually, large print needing more Megapixels is a half truth. What people don't take into consideration is viewing distance. The fact is, you shouldn’t and don’t want to print everything at 300dpi. Even a 42MP photo, something that can reliably be blown way up, only spits out a 26-inch x 17-inch print at 300dpi. This is why standard print resolutions rarely get that high. It all comes down to distance. The further away you sit from your screen or a physical print, the lower the print resolution needs to be. So don’t be afraid to take that 42MP photo and blow it up to create a 5 x 8-foot print, you totally can. Just don’t expect some crazy print resolution.
Thank you! I hope you enjoy your G9, I'm hoping to take mine out today And you're very right, any system has compromise! Honestly I'd print way larger than A1 with my G9 photos if I had access to a printer that large (or a space to mount them) I do tend to dabble in a bit of everything, so MFT does suit me well
Regarding the megapixel count: it's worth reminding people that 4K TV sets have about 8Mpx resolution. Now I invite anybody to come and tell me that my 85" 4K TV is somehow blurry or has low resolution ;)
Portrait: Full frame Night photo: Full frame Action/Sports: APSC and Action Cams Landscape: MFT Travel photo: MFT Architecture: MFT and APSC Film: ALL Vlogging: APSC, MFT and Action Cam. Price/Quality: MFT
I only shoot in decent light with m43. I don’t want the extra postproduction work of lowlight in this format. For predetermined lowlight conditions I just shoot s5ii. Top notch content creation!
Good content, I agree with your points. Just some small feedback on your videography: the reflecting lights in your glasses was quite distracting to me as a viewer.
MFT are here to stay for a reason. Excellent video. All sensor sizes stand their ground well. Different horses for different courses. Much love from Greece, stay strong and blessed.
Thanks for the video. I went MFT for the lighter weight of the system, not so much the camera body but the lenses. I’ve got a defective back. It was a good decision for that. I used to have to work out what lenses to take - max 2 - and there was always regret during the shoot. Now I regularly take 3 (25mm and 45mm primes and 14-140mm) and even the 100-300 as well if I might, just might, need it. I can hand-hold at 300mm (600) without becoming tired. I expected some sacrifices with MFT. I take your point regarding noise, but I have a 1.4 25mm lens, super light so can be taken everywhere. With a little bit of planning, I find I have never had the problem with noise. I thought I’d be doing a lot of post correcting but not so. If I want a larger image, I move closer. You are spot-on about the fascination with size of image. The 80meg image (G9) is great. Other than macro, I’ve not used it apart from playing. It is fun though. I have 3 x external HDDs, 20TB, for back up. I struggle now. 80meg images don’t compute for me. With the 1.4 I have no problem with depth of field. I do a fair bit of flower photography and lack of depth of field is a problem. I do a lot of photostacking. With the stabilising system, I’ve even managed it hand-held. You are right, so right, about the concentration on the old 35mm film format. One problem you didn’t mention is the focal length farce. I’ve been trying to teach a grandchild photography. She asks, ‘Why,’ so often and the mess with focal length irritates her. With different frame sizes, we should have a universal measurement. Books and magazines refer to it for 35mm. Mind you, it’s the same with f stops. She understands it is a calculation, but again, why? 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 48. Much more sensible. I’m Irish as well, and it does seem as if the measurements were invented by a countryman of ours. Certainly not countrywoman (sexist I know, but you know I’m right). Thanks for the video.
Eli, I have an OM1, but sometimes wonder about buying a FF. I haven't done it yet because of people like you who speak with such common sense, convincing me I don't need it! That doesn't mean I won't buy a FF, because sometimes you buy things not because you need it, but because you just want it! I enjoy your videos so thank you for your work, keep it up. PS congratulations on your 1000 subscribers.
Well, go ahead and buy a D700 or a DF or D4, within Nikon the most legendary in terms of image quality accompanied with any good lens that can even be manual focus of the F mount. And then go take photos in situations low light, sunsets and compare with your OM1 and the OM1 is a much more recent camera.
If you want one camera to do everything including video for a TH-cam channel then MFT micro 4/3 is truly the best choice considering IBIS that lets you hand hold a lot more often which inspires confidence in both photo and video vlogging plus some of the mft lens combos are light for hand held vlogging. I was always unsure until I bought the different formats and kept grabbing MFT cameras to take just in case I wanted great videos and they are always a safe bet if you can only afford one camera system.
I am moving more of my work from micro four thirds to full frame for 2024. It's been so hard to find lenses this last year in the Philippines for micro four thirds. I still will keep my gh4 gh5 and keep looking for lenses if they ever become available. In the mean time, it is still a great system to keep for travel.
Thanks a lot for showing such a strong commitment to MFT. I believe that there are a couple points where you could serve the MFT cause even better by motivating manufacturers to work on lens selection and their price. For instance, at 6:43, when you say it's the same "amount of light", it is not totally accurate. It's the same 'intensity of light" on the sensor, but altogether the "amount of light" is 4 times less. The 25mm f1.7 at f1.7 has an entrance pupil diameter of 14.7mm. The equivalent FF lens that gives the same angle of view is indeed 50mm, but in order to collect the same amount of light. it must have the same entrance pupil diameter of 14.7mm, and that's f3.4. In fact, shooting a scene on MFT at 25mm, f1.7, and ISO 200 should give almost exactly the same image as shot on an FF at 50mm, f3.4, and ISO 800 (yes, ISO 200 for MFT and 800 for FF), with both pictures shot at same exposure time. Same angle of view, same brightness, same depth of field, and same noise. All of this to highlight that if MFT has weaknesses, it is usually not in the sensor (except perhaps the low megapixel count and high base ISO), but in lens selection and price. One glaring example is on the long end, for wildlife, with cheap lenses that are bad or mediocre and only one acceptable lens that costs an eye watering $7000. In comparison, for FF, a good wildlife lens cost $2000 and there is plenty of choice for good to stellar lenses.
This is the number one problem I have with MFT....the low light gathering affects everything from noise to auto-focus as well. To get low apertures on MFT 1.7 like Leica lenses, they're almost the same size and weight as FF lenses along with the same price ranges as well. Why would someone do that and pay the same amounts for FF setups, except get worse performance out of a MFT system when they could've just went with a comparable system in 2023??? It is beyond me???
Very helpful video. No camera can take great photos in the dark. You have to choose your shot and light to suit. I have a 20 year old Canon bridge camera which has only 5MP yet I can print to A3 and I frame them. You can only have so many pictures on your walls at any one time unless you want to live in an art gallery, so what I do is print to A4 and file them in plastic sleeves and keep them in binders or box files. Later I can choose a new photo that I would like to display on my walls and so then print them out to A3. The alternative is to just keep them on your computer until you want an A3 print, but there is something about holding a print in your hands that you have just produced and the A4 gives you a good idea of what the A3 will look like as I don’t go in for calibrating monitors and setting print paper profiles etc. I just use trial and error, as I only print on budget paper and use a very inexpensive budget A3 Canon printer (compared to the pro models). This seems to work for me and overall is very much cheaper than going down the professional equipment route. I do have other cameras as well, but the m4/3 ones are a dream to carry about. I will add that all my cameras bar one are used, there is no need to buy new. There are excellent used camera companies out there and you can save a fortune!
I shoot Canon R6mkii and just got the OM-D E-MS iii. Took it out to the woods and did some practicing with it. The only real M43 advantage for me is size, convenience, cost of lenses. The full frame absolutely kills it for image quality in every category. But I have something I can still shoot like a pro and not have to lug 3lbs of camera around and I'm getting much better pictures than a cell phone camera. There's something fun about street photography I like to. M43 makes photography fun again like how it used to be with all the lens choices too.
I loved the video. Thanks for making it. I am pretty invested in micro four thirds and do a ton of street photography with it. I always have an Olympus with me, so it has become sort of my sixth sense to grab a shot or ten (LOL) whenever I see something that tweeks my intrest. As for megapixel counts, I will use InPixio Photo Maximizer any time I need to upres an image. The results are fantastic and I can enlarge up to 1000 percent. I highly reccomend this software. Its great.
I'd say 'horses for courses'....in my case I have started with aps-c...which I am still using for sports photography, then found my holy grail ....a full frame dslr, but now only use it if I'm going out with my camera for a purpose. But for everyday walk around, street and spontaneous and family photography it is mostly my beloved em5 (original) and really love it (lens options are endless!)....even prefer it over the fuji's, of which I have a few....Great Channel btw...keep up the good work!
Just discovered your channel, and as a micro four thirds system owner for over 10 years, found your video really interesting, so many thanks for sharing your valuable thoughts with us. I happened to be at my camera club last night (I'm a relatively new member) when the chair and his deputy were asked by another member for advice on what small camera they should buy, as they found the weight and size of their FF gear becoming too much. Unbelievably, they didn't give micro four thirds a mention - it wasn't even on their radar, as I'm pretty sure they see it as a system incapable of producing decent IQ and just not up to the job. Not surprisingly I won't be rejoining in 2024, and am now looking for a camera club where MFT is accepted as much as any other system!
Get yourself back in that camera club and show them that micro four thirds IS a very capable system, you have 10 years experience to back that up. By leaving you are validating their lack of knowledge towards M/43. SPEAK UP!
@80z1r Tbh the members were generally not my sort of people anyway - seemed to spend considerable time talking about their latest expensive Canon or Leica acquisitions. The group I'm now with seem more interested in the actual art of photography rather than GAS.
@@robertavery8002 That’s the big problem with camera clubs. Glad you have found one with a real interest in photography or alternatively just do you own thing and try to interest friends and family in the photos you take.
Liked and subscribed. I never had nor used Micro 4/3s. Just a hobby photographer with aps-c fujis, but really enjoyed your comments and ideas on the format. Cheers!
I think you totally nailed it Eli. Only thing I would add is that the future of M43 has been lets say in some doubt (rightly or wrongly) for quite some time. But then again, look at Canon, EF, EF-S and EF-M mount systems (ergo all Canon DSLR’s) have been dropped, so…. I own 3 cameras in 3 different formats and systems. Fuji X100, Canon 6D and my little Panasonic. Bang for the buck is certainly M43 and I would recommend this system for people coming from a camera phone. The best thing about M43 is definitely the lens choices, but also IBIS (although others are catching up). But all 3 of my systems have their place and get use. The best thing I like about my X100 and 6D where all mirrorless cameras miss out is the optical viewfinder. Sure, EVF’s and flippy backscreens are nice and certainly useful, but I am an avid old school OVF fan. Cheers 🍻 Edit: I also don’t make videos, so I actually have a preference for camera bodies with fewer features and less buttons that are less fiddly to use, hence my love of the X100 and 6D. They both technically can shoot (kind of) video, but it’s pretty much hidden away 😊
Cheers Mike! I've heard M43 is "dying" so often, but even if the system does dissappear at least there's a vast amount of lenses that'll be on the used market! I've a super budged M43 camera on the way, which will be interesting to compare to a camera phone in a future video
M43 is also a great system for macro photography. I switched from a Canon 5D Mk IV to an Olympus EM1 Mk III. I still do have a Canon 5DC with a 40 mm lens. If you drop formats out of the equation and just look at the image as printed and intended by the photographer then only the image truly counts. The Shows that I’ve created using my Olympus camera have always been well received. I shoot events under a variety of lighting conditions. Although the end result is perceivably different (to me) when comparing the output from my Canon work to Olympus system, I’ve never had any issues raised by the client over colour or quality of the images. I’m always amazed and satisfied by the prints that come out of M43 files. I only ever view a print over 100% except for circumstances when I may meet to fix a mask or work on a delicate retouch. Pixel peep less and print more, you’ll be happy that you did.
True enough as I have kept my EM10 II with the 30mm for macro. I have switched back to Fuji now they have IBIS and the 16-80 f/4 does cover a really broad range of situations. The 80mm at f/4 would need f/3 at 60mm in m43 to get the same depth of field and framing. The EM10 IV is a savage hatchet job on the Mk II and any new lens is 'Pro' and priced as such so it is difficult to see how OM are going to carry on. The X-S10 is a smaller and lighter than the G85 which I just never warmed to and the size of the latter is a mystery against the sensor size. Panasonic are showing a considerable lack of interest in the format but then Fuji seem to have abandoned their rangefinders so difficult to know if there is really any safe space in this hobby.
@@michaeld5888 well. As long as the body is functioning and your lenses suit your needs, keep the system going. There’s plenty of solid used gear to replace failed gear.
The reason I shoot with MFT is simple. I can carry my 12-40, 40-150, Simga 30mm and Sigma 56mm, G9 body, and my MacBook or iPad Pro in a 13L messenger. If i had a 15L I could probably fit alot more. Which is perfect for traveling because I can just take the bag with me as carry on luggage
Hi, Great channel! I want to ask you - where do you think is the best place to order camera equipment to Ireland? Any useful online sites you've used? thanks
I have tiny sensor cameras, like phone sensor size, 1", MFT, APS-C, and full-frame. It's all about lens combinations as far as noise, fast shutter speed, and depth of field are concerned. But if you make a 12-35mm f/1.4 lens on MFT (in 35mm it's a 24-70 f/2.8), it will perform like that, but also be as big as a normal 2.8 lens on full-frame - the laws of physics (actually, lens design also matters, but still). The OM-1 MK II has the super-res mode, the pixel shift, which is the tripod mode, and then the image average mode, the handheld 50 MP mode. It takes 16 images and combines them with super resolution. MFT can do everything, except fast motion in low light, over distance, simply because it doesn't have fast telephoto lenses. For this, full-frame with its 2.8 telephoto lenses is better. Even APS-C lacks f/1.8 zoom lenses, since Sigma Art lenses are for DSLR and not mirrorless. Shots of the moon: you take 200 shots and make it super high resolution on the computer with free software. However, the P1000, even with its phone-sized sensor, is best for moon shots due to its 3000mm lens, and then you clean it up by image averaging. google moon P1000 images.
The first point (noise reduction software) was something I have using to rationalize a MFT system but haven’t seen actual results on other YT channels, so really appreciate those examples 👍🏼
Hey Eli, thanks for your insights. Very true. I just got an M1X so to compensate the small package but not too small...coming from full-frame (Pentax K1-II, Leica SL, Canon 5DII... which are still with me...) but wanted to have a try with M43, and enjoying the experience. So who the hell cares of sensor formats. Every system has its pro and cons... the end result being the pleasure of doing the best picture you can, and with whatever tool you might have. I still have and kept, by the way, also, my Fuji XT1... Pleasure takes many shapes :-))
For those that worry about a shallow depth of field with MFT... get a "portrait camera". An example would be a used Nikon D600, D700, or D800 with a Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D lens. Not a lot of money for what you get from it. Perfect compliment to your MFT system. Just use that camera for portraits, like I do, and you're set.
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI I got all and nearly always use mft. APS-c is no different from mft. I got the g9 II and XT-5 , low light is the same, because the xt has 40mp and DOF is so close. FF is differnt but not better, it dependent on what you shoot.
@@Katalu Full frame in low light is fare better than MFT, sorry. I use both systems and I know what I'm talking about. And there are hundreds of well-made videos, with honesty and when the systems are subjected to challenging light conditions, full frame has better quality, there can be no doubt about that.
Liked and sub'd! Started with aps-c, then went FF, then back to aps-c and finally landed on m43. The IBIS, FPS, and focal length "reach" (FFE) make it the perfect platform for the sort of shooting I do now.
As someone who started in 35mm film cameras, now using M4/3, there is an age old solution to noise, and that is to us a lower ISO with a good old tripod. This is not all encompassing particularly with moving subjects such as in sports, but tripods should not be discounted. Modern OIS and IBIS technology have vastly improved the low light abilities of these cameras when on the move.
I think in good light, M43 never disappoints. Great features, great lenses, etc. poor marketing has hurt their trajectory, but the quality is significant. My only complaint is high-contrast sundown/landscape scenes. I can’t get those right with M43, likely my error. Love the E-M5 Mark II and 12-45 F4 Pro.
The E-M5 Mark II is the problem. I did a comparison "shoot" and dawn with lots of light sources in the shot (a small Japanese Lantern Festival) with E-M5II and an E-M1II - and the differences were huge! The E-M1II behave better in every aspect, especially less shadow noise and much more details in the highlight areas! Look out for a used E-M1II or E-M5III (or at least try to borrow one of these models to see if the one or other solves your problem).
@@c.augustin Interesting. I guess the 20MP sensor in the cameras you reference noticeably outperforms the 16MP sensor of the E-M5 II? I will try to get my hands on one of the newer ones. Thanks.
@@pouchboy1 It is not only the sensor, also the analog pre-amplifiers and A/D converter. More modern cameras are better in dealing with the sensor signal. And high-end models are better than mid-range ones - my Olympus Pen F (also a 20 MP sensor) can't hold a candle to the slightly older E-M1II. The new Lumix G9II seems to have a still better dynamic range and better low-light performance than other MFT models (and 25 MP resolution, which is plenty - I might buy a used one the moment I can afford it).
I am one of those who is pretty happy with his EM5 at concerts. Cameras need light. Could care less about "low light" performance. Also happy with it with strobes/flashes and available "natural" light. 😊
@@ElifarnhillI'd totally recommend! I'm using my classic E-M5 and if you want to see something you can expect from a crappy lightning situation in a concert, i've done a few this December (@luzbiensuave in case you wanna check out). So pretty much worst case scenarios: ISO 6400 (my max usable) and 1/10 to 1/100 shutter speed. And still looks pretty good! I'm talking just Christmas lights with some reflectors, or basic ambience. I'm sure stadiums or bigger gigs would be easy peasy. And when I mean worst case scenarios I'm taking into account I only use vintage lenses, so f/2 to f/3.5 at the widest end (at least the ones I own) and only manual focusing. If I can land it safe I'm sure anyone can with enough creativity. But I gotta admit, crushing the blacks and getting freaky with color helps a lot. Also ETTR as much as you can! Cheers!
Ff to 4/3 will be a challenge. Going from 4/3 to FF is amazing. They both have their merits. People disagree with me on this buuuut, my 4/3 helped me buy my house. It does the job just fine
I know this post is 5mo old, but I recently switched from FF to m4/3. I personally enjoy the experience a lot more because they are much lighter and smaller than FF
Hard to tell in the video, but my Fujifilm XT-5 is about the same size. Their lineup of f2 primes are pretty compact. Fully weather sealed. 40mp APSC sensor. IBIS. Beautiful color science. May be worth a look.
Fuji have great cameras and lenses, but much more expensive than m4/3. For the budding amateur m4/3 can’t be beaten, especially if you buy used. I got a Lumix camera with lens for £99! Money doesn’t buy you better photography, only the photographer can do that. Later they can graduate to other makes, sensor sizes if they need too. I have 5 different cameras, all used (and used) for different purposes.
@@petercollins7848 I have a lot of M43 cameras and lenses gf2,om10, om5, om5mk2, I have never been really happy with the output of any of these cameras , it seems difficult to get photos that are acceptable , they are either under or over exposed, too dark in darker areas and honestly on my last trip I resorted to using my phone , a pixel 3 , it took much better photos than I have managed using any M43 camera and 99 percent were acceptable, I bought an old fuji X20 for less than any of these M43 cameras and lens cost me and it's only a 12mp camera with a 28-112 f2-2.8 integrated lens and the photos are great , I mean magnitudes better than any of the M43 cameras I own, the fuji is light,compact and performs very well and the lens produces great results, I travel and carrying around all my M43 lenses etc is just a pain , the fuji is a great solution to my requirements for a travel and I am very happy with it
I have been using M4/3 on and off (mostly on!) since the GF-1 and I love the system. It's just a shame both Olympus and Panasonic have stopped making small cameras recently, or at least it has slowed down considerably. Let's hope we get a few new additions or updates in 2025! I would love to see a small Olympus with a monochrom only sensor! They could make it look like and call it the Olympus Trip M. 😁
I enjoyed the video, it was well done. I suspect that the 24 by 36mm, 35mm full frame became the norm because most people had been shooting 35mm film. And I have never been a big megapixel fiend since three of my biggest prints, 24 by 36 inches were from 5.1 MP JPEGs.
i use my g9 and gx85 for over 3 years, it was my beginning of photography. since a half year i use a fullframe system. with m43 i had more joy but the fullframe images are so much better. so for me joy against iq. but it is a nice feeling to come down from a spot and know, you can do everything with the shots. on the other side my m43 gear i had often with me, my fullframe is often at home. and i recognized how good the leica and pro lenses was!
I moved back to M43 because of the larger DoF. I now have the OM-1 with BSI Sensor, the noise is pretty good and the Hi-Res Handheld Mode 50 MPix is fantastic! The 100-300 lens u mentioned was not that great to me, i had it. i now have the 40-150 Oly Pro which is super sharp.
I think you summed it up when you made the point that if people are looking at the noise then it may not be an interesting photo. Same holds true for all aspects. If people are concerned with what equipment captured the image then it may not be a compelling image. Of course nerds and photo-geeks like us will always be concerned with the gear used but really that is the least important aspect of a good photograph.
I came from FF to M4/3. While it’s true that M4/3 is performing poorly in low light, a lot of the noise issue can be solved with software. My photography has improved a lot since switching to M4/3 because I always take a camera with me now and a couple of small primes. For normal photography and if you are an amateur M4/3 is more than capable. This gear will not hold you back.
I have mft as my system for several reasons: × I was given the gx9 with some lenses as a gift × generally lighter and smaller than apsc and digital small format (marketed as full frame) at the kit level × following from that, a lower environmental impact overall compared to other systems × useability: small gear goes with you more often then bigger and hefty × price (in general but there are exceptions...) Like you I do not have a lot of low light work and interests. The pixel shift technology is something I seldom use on my G9 but if I would go for a 40 megapixel image then there would be room to crop and have a 20megapixel image in the end.
Great video. Yes MFT depth of field is both a strength and a weakness. Good point. I am a big fan of small camera systems, especially weatherproof ones. My back thanks me for it. One subtle con I find with MFT is latitude. This is inevitable with a small, dense sensor. (Imagine a 20Mp MFT sensor would be 80Mp in full frame.) This relative weakness compared to bigger sensors doesn't show up in all pictures, but it is there sometimes. It's just another small trade-off that I am willing to live with for a small, tough, beautifully competent system. Like any system, you just have to know how to use it. I can get great photos with MFT and I like the form factor and ergonomics.
I find no 'cons' with my Oly E-M1 mark ii. My reason for switching to m4/3 was because of Vintage lenses & IBIS - Canon/Nikon/Sony cost waaaaay too much for IBIS. Now I have 24 lenses and actually enjoy the hands-on approach to using them, and all for a total cost (with s/h body) of under £1800 . I will now be selling my 700d, 7d2 and M5. P.S. The reason for FF sensors is not because of the film format - it was because the original prototype digicams were made with 35mm format lenses.
I have been a Fuji and Sony full frame shooter for years. Two of my buddies who are the best photographers I know (former National Geographic photographers) carry their MFT camers and lenses in a fanny pack while I lug gear in a huge back pack. No more. I went MFTrds six months ago and after a trip to Spain with my OM-1 and three lenses in my fanny pack I came home and sold all the Sony gear. Still have my Fuji gear because I can't let them go. But full frame for 8-10 prints and the interest is a joke.
Not sure about micro 4/3" but on my Sony camera the use case of multi pixel plexing technology works when I have the camera sitting like a rock on the tripod or when I can shot with very fast shutter speed, otherwise single shot (if possible plus AI upsize) will be better alternative.
Yes, as you mention, I don't think I've seen _any_ camera that does not have noise at ISO 25,600. I use DxO PhotoLab 7 for noise reduction. Lumix should bundle that software with the camera and nobody would mention noisy MFT. MFT is so nice. I carry 16-800mm equiv. in my camera bag everywhere I go. For $2K, I get great weather sealing and ruggedness. The equivalent in FF is crazy heavy and expensive for body and lenses. I love the G9ii so far. The G9 feels better in the hand and has the top screen, but other than that, I'm quite the fan. Congratulations on 1K. Good luck!
You obviously haven't tried the latest noise reduction in Adobe Camera Raw. I recently shot hummingbirds in flight at 25,600, ran the raw file through Topaz and the noise was a mess. I then tried Adobe Camera Raw and the super fine feather detail in the hummingbird wing looked more like a 400 iso image. Adobe finally woke up from their long slumber and released ACR 17.0 in October, so noise is no longer an issue with m43.
I just saw a six megapixel image put through Topaz AI where he can upscale the megapixels by Scott Bourne. The photograph had excellent detail in the fur of the dogs he photographed. I think Scott Bourne used to be an Olympus ambassador.
Interesting I'll have to check out the video! I've used topaz a bit, mainly for noise reduction, but the up scaling is pretty great - I've been shooting with a GF3 for a bit recently which has a 12MP sensor, I can upscale with topaz and as long as you don't try to upscale too much you get natural looking results
Gateway drug to micro four thirds is the Nikon 1 system. Using the Nikon 1 V3 opened my eyes to the use cases for smaller cameras that have small sensors and small lenses. The only thing driving me away from the V3 right now is that it's the last of the line, 95% of the lenses are auto-focus only, and you can't use off camera flash with it.
Micro Four Thirds has its limitations and for some, these are a show stopper...but for me, the advantages out weigh the disadvantages. I shot a lot of extreme outdoor macro, where MTF is king. Hiking up mountains means every ounce is important to me and I can carry pro level glass at a fraction the weight of full frame pro level glass. I overcome limitations with techniques. For example, I shoot most landscapes using bracketing and panoramas. I needed to learn how to do this to get great results but I now have it mastered. The computational capabilities of the Olympus cameras are very very useful (Exposure Bracketing to +- 6 stops, focus bracketing, live nd, live composite, etc.) and can not be matched by any other system. Autofocus and Subject detect is still not the best but have made huge improvements in the most recent models. Its simply a matter of engineering and time. Oh, I normally hike during the day when low light is not an issue. I also find that post processing is the great equalizer. As long as I can fill the frame, be in focus and the image is shape I can make up for everything else in post. All in all I love the system. It does exactly what I want.
As one of the old "guys" (LOL) who has been taking photos since 1978 and who is interested in the MFT format, I must say that the biggest draw back that I see in the quality of MFT (and incidentally in the APSC and full frame formats also) is the bit depth. There is a "gritty-ness" (sorry for the neologism) or choppy look to the colors in the MFT images. Color variations do not seem to transition smoothly in the 12 bit rendering. This is very easy to see if we make an extreme comparison between a 12 bit MFT image and Fuji’s “medium” format which is 16 bit. I’m guessing that the smoothness in the medium format images is not because of the pixel size but rather the bit depth. After all, the pixel size in the Fuji GFX 100S-II 101Mp is 3.78 micron versus 3.34 micron in the (Olympus) OM System OM-1-II. The “smoothness” in the color transitions of the 16 bit images are very noticeable. Thanks for your video!
6:50 not the "same amount of light" the same intensity of light but abouth 1/4th of area FF sensor's if you focus entire FF image on MFT sensor you'll get the ~2 stop improvement in light intensity
I used to be one of those who believe that FF is the holy grail of photography, nowadays even micro 4/3 seems huge because of lenses and a premium compact is all i really need most of the time. People praise the FF for its shallow depth of field above everything only because they can't be bothered to learn composition and blurring most of the background away is the easiest way to go. I was one of those people too but since ive learned to stop down and think more about what i include and exclude from my frame, my need for FF decreased dramatically. I would use my phone for 99% of my photography if the ergonomics was any better.
Full frame _is_ "better" in lots of ways. Fwiw I suspect the difference between m43 and APSC is not that big in terms of noise / dynamic range (open to correction there). I use m43 myself cause i can carry two smaller m43 cameras - one with a 20mm prime, the other with a 35-100mm lens - together they fit in a tiny camera bag (cm: 18x12x8 / 7"x 5"x 3"). Now i wonder how heavy and big the FF equivalent would be ...
I hear you. Instant sub. Keep it coming. re. best use cases (8:42): travel, everyday walkabout, street - because size, weather sealing, durability. You kind of missed value for money. It's easily half price of any other comparable system for enthusiast usage at least, and the hybrid video options and IBIS simplifies a lot of sessions, no matter what you're shooting.
I shoot Fujifilm APS-C and used to shoot 35mm film. Film had MANY limitations that we don't today: ISO 100/200/400 and 800 (grainy), so I had to use either flash, tripod, and/or low shutter speeds to get a decent picture. Enlarging to 20"x30" was grainy, even with the best techniques. I feel that today's MFT sensor cameras are probably equivalent to 35mm film or maybe even 645 medium format film with regards to pure resolution. We can debate forever on "look", so let's not go there. In short, we are SWIMMING in cheap, incredibly capable photo tech today. The limitations on "getting the perfect shot" is not in the camera anymore -- it's on the photographer.
Larger DOF is an advantage when you shoot macro, wildlife, and landscape, which is what I like to do. For portraits, F1.8 lens and below do excellent work. The only downside will be fast action in low light, but you cannot have everything, I guess.
Strongly disagree on wild life. There is a reason all the most successful wild life photographers are using 600mm f/4 which cost around 15,000 to 20,000 $, depending on the system.
It's a bit noisy at ISO 12560? When I was learning photography, ISO 1200 was specialist fast film, and that it was grainy as hell was just a fact of life.
ISO in analog is not what ISO in digital photography is. ISO is not affecting "sensitivity" in digital camera sensors. It's a computational feature that applies an "electronic gain" to the sensor data, to push the light. Unfortunately, this also pushes the noise.
@photoxisch well obviously they aren't the same, but they are broadly equivalent: 1/125s exposure at f5.6 about the same on ISO 400 whether we're talking about film or sensors. Where it differs is that electronic sensors- even small, 15year old ones- out-perform film by 2 or 3 stops. Certainly, new full-frame sensors are indistinguishable from magic: see Emily's new (Dec 2024) m4/3 vs FF video where she pulls details from horribly underexposed spur of the moment shots taken at a wedding party, resulting in lively colours without a hint of noise. Conclusion: modern sensors are forgiving of exposure to the point where you could set shutter purely based on desired motion blur/lack thereof, and aperture purely on required DoF, and do 'exposure' almost as a separate variable in post-production using the camera's amazing dynamic range. None of that changes the fact that even a first-generation m4/3 camera is 2-3 stops (2-3 times) more forgiving than film was back in the day. My point is, when I was first taking photography seriously 30+ years ago, to take 36 exposures (call it 38 or 39, I was pretty good at loading my camera with minimum waste) at ISO 1200, I had to pay something like a 2x premium on the price of the film, and commit to taking the whole roll at that ISO. If you told me then that a camera was bad because its images got noisy above ISO 12560, my first thought would be that there was a typo, and you were talking about a type of ISO 1200 film that had an oddly specific third significant figure in its rating. The idea that there could be a sensor that's 3+ stops faster (we'll ignore reciprocity failure) than a fast film, and that people would quibble about image quality in low light would have been fantasy. It's not surprising that newer FF sensors are better than 15 yo M4/3 sensors. Newer M4/3 sensors are also better, if not by the same degree as newer FF (low light performance being one of the areas were FF is at an advantage rather than a disadvantage compared to M4/3). Of course top of the range cameras from 2024 are much better than mid/top range cameras from 2010. That doesn't negate the fact that those 2010 cameras were similarly more advanced than equivalents from the early days of digital cameras (remember when 2mp was considered good? And then when 3.2mp was the new benchmark and suddenly 2mp was rubbish?). As someone who's traveled in time from the late 1980s, I'm telling you that a bit of noise at ISO TWELVE THOUSAND! is a limitation that I can accept in a cheap second-hand camera.
As for new 4/3 sensors resolution, there's the Gigajot 4/3 40Mp for low light imaging and already about 5 stops better than the best FF sensor, or anything else for that matter. These new 4/3 sensors are being developed for vehicles in Israel and at Cambridge and as yet only as scientific cameras. We will not see them in consumer cameras for a while but with noiseless sensitivity of about half a photon, they are going to be a game changer.
In England just now we are "enjoying" one of the worst winters ever with record rainfall and little sun. My Panasonic GX9 definitely performs better in good light but I'm having great success this year with a couple of workarounds. I film in RAW usually with about +2/3 exposure compensation. Processing is in DXO photolab using ClearView plus settings down somewhere between 15-25 on the slider and DeepPrime noise reduction again turned down between 8-20. This has absolutely cut through the gloom with very pleasing results. I found the in-camera JPEG processing very poor by comparison. You also need a decent lense.
I've had the EM1X and the Pen F but that's when I shot for myself and a hobby, but I've sold them a couple of years ago as I now shoot for clients mainly in lowlight at high iso and there is no way I would use MFT. It's a great system but it's limited in certain situations, and I think when others are relying on your images, you just won't choose MFT.
I am returning to system cameras now after several years using mainly a phone. The phones lack in low light, lack in zoom capability, lack in low light, lack in colour reproduction. I came from a Nikon D50 with a 5Mp CCD sensor. So… your cons are mostly pros for me. I used the D50 for freelance journalist photography, and sometimes got a full page in print. The megapixels mostly is no problem unless you need to crop.
Sensor size is only really important (from my experience) in wildlife photography. nearly everything else, if properly exposed and/or processed, will be fine. Especially using modern noise reduction. I shot some of my favourite images with an 8 mpx camera, and they stand up to my current images.
Excellent thoughts, totally agree with the medium format comment. Why aren't there more videos saying that medium format is better than FF its always FF looking down on APSC or MFT !
The 300 F4.0 may be the sharpest lens on the market. Simply stunning resolution. As long as you can fill the frame and be in focus you are going to have an amazing shot. This lens may have done more for bring pros to MFT for wildlife shooting then anything else. I even beats the 150-400.
i am currently considering fuji i have to say. xt2 or xt3 used to be exact. right now i am on m43 (well it just happens because i came back to photography and i just got the cheapest camera i could find really) while in theory, i enjoy a lot of the benefits m43 brings, and i like the 4:3 format and i have no issues overall, what kind of kills a lot of my enjoyment is the... absolute garbage... handling of ISO of m43. its actually ridiculous. i look at images i took with my old nikon d90 back 15 years ago, and its less noisy at like iso 1250 than my m43 is at like iso400. it feels unreal how bad the m43 handles iso really. it limits me so much that pretty much all i can shoot is pure daylight. early morning? forget it, evening? forget it, indoors? forget it. just sitting in my kitchen right now wich is brightly lid with a window open and my m43 already needs to bump up the iso to around 1600 wich creates so incredibly noisy images, losing all detail and ruining colors that, ngl... it doesnt look much better than my smartphone. so my alternative idea was a used a7ii maybe, but it has many drawbacks too. like only 5fps burst mode, lenses are more expensive and larger and missing so many features. then i look at a used fuji xt2 or xt3 wich can be had for around the same price, and it retains a lot of the form factor and small lenses and lightweight and whatnot the m43 offers, it has amazing burst mode and it still does not outright suck in everything above 800 iso like the m43 does, so it kind of looks as if it strikes the perfect middle ground.
i value camera weight and size very important, i was considering a micro four thirds, until i came across small apsc and full frame cameras. like now we have canon r10, r50, r8, sony zve10, zve1, a7c all just as small and lightweight . lenses is the problem but nowadays theres alot of compact full frame lenses coming, like the canon rf 28mm f2.8, rf 16mm f2.8. these and many more makes micro four thirds a harder choice. anyway good video.
Fast glass makes a significant difference on MFT - the Zuiko Digital SHQ glass is superb, if you can find it, but you have to accept the size difference between it and MFT lenses. And fast manual glass too, both vintage and modern.
For me the main cons is DOF and ISO, but ISO with the latest Panasonic camera, with the G9II it's no more a problem. Indeed DOF, compare to FF or even APS-C, you must be at least 1.5 f more open to have similar DOF
I found Photoshop's new AI tools for RAW files seems to even the playing field in regards to low light performance/resolution for Micro 4/3. Frankly I don't see much difference between M43 and APS-C with stills and video tends to be superior compared to my Canon M6.
Same with me, the new AI Denoise gives astonishingly good results and improves the overall quality. But it is quite slow on my (underpowered) machines.
@@c.augustin agree with both of you. I shot a band and one of my images was at 6400 ISO. I never use that high of ISO but I was trying auto ISO at the time. The AI denoise cleaned it up and it looked amazing.
Interesting reflections. But I disagree with the issue of noise and the limitation of sensor size. Size matters, without a doubt, but so does the quality of construction and supporting circuitry. To assess reality, you would have to take the same photos between a micro four thirds, APS-C and full frame camera. My experience is that there is not such a big difference (compared to the new 20 megapixel models from OM System, the OM1 and OM5). Furthermore, the noise of the new micro four-thirds sensors is less chromatic, like more grain from the old photosensitive film. I invite you to watch the following videos, with real evidence that will surely surprise you: Noise: th-cam.com/video/KPPYDAgwmsE/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/EYaP0pvCFZs/w-d-xo.html Dynamic range: th-cam.com/video/-HkDlkdxaQs/w-d-xo.html PS: The difference in high ISOs between my EM5MarkII (Olympus) and my OM5 (OM System) is huge. At 6400 ISO my OM5 works better than the M5MarkII, because I hardly have chromatic noise, only a film-like grain (if in the M5MarKII I try to shoot below 1600ISO, with the OM5 I am not worried about shooting at 6400ISO or more)
I got the R5 and the G9II .. and the R5 has much better auto focus for moving subjects, its as small as the G9II. So if i just want a 50mm with low depth of field its the better choice. But for longer lenses i like MFT, and for video the G9II looks better to me, and better IBIS that once again comes in handy with video. So it depends on what i am shooting that day.
I guess it’s a good time to do a respective comment on the state of m4/3 It’s still popular in many areas of the world. Panasonic sells more than OM systems and their market share is shrinking. Perhaps as I have been told the name change created a disconnect with camera shoppers. It appears Panasonic is focusing more and more with releases and shifting engineers to the L frame systems. How long will the continue to support a shrinking m 4/3 market OM system appears to be struggling. The pipeline seems dry and having sigma produce a massive FF lens with m4/3 mount and controls at a much higher price hurts. A 90mm macro lens for a niche market ? The OM-1 mark ll is just a small help with what shoot ( wildlife ). I still use the 1x body over my OM-1 as it has the things I want on it. So why not a version ll bigger buffer or/and support for express cards ? Is the the 25 megapixel sensor. It’s an amazing camera
I agree with your points but still love my EM1 Mark III. I sell my work on-line and at galleries and no one ever asks me what camera I shoot with, just other photographers who don't buy art work, lol
Nice video! :) I've been shooting with Olympus gear since 2013. I Love the system. But... if need arises to shoot in dimly lit conditions I am forced to use my Sony A7s. Still, this applies when shooting dance or fast moving subjects in low light conditions (with f1.8 primes at speeds of 1/400 - 1/800). Overall, the system is Great! Hope Om systems and Lumix come up with something revolutionarty, cause the lenses of FF are, usualy, Heavy. :)
if OM/lumix truly embraced the small nature of the sensor and dominated the compact market, I feel like they would just fair so much better in a market that's more orientated towards FF
I bought canon 5D and sold Nikon 600D and sold, canon RP and sold. Only constant is EM1 mark 2. This low light shit for me is like buy a bunker for dooms day instead of a house .. MFT does all as long as you don’t want to play guitar like a drum . Every tool is specific , what we need it to act like FF FFS ( love the video btw) With all this advancement have we created any Diane Arbus Robert Capps or Henri Carter ? It’s only art form where gear has taken over
I would add that the lack of third party manufacturers investing in the system puts downward pressure on innovation (the same arguments being made in relation to canon with the RF mount). The m43 lens lineup is pretty old now, which is fine if you don’t want anything else, but if you do want more modern lenses… (my favourite lens is the canon 70-200 f/4 from 2001, but just saying). I’ll be interested to see what OM a system comes out with when they’ve run out of Olympus blueprints.
That's a great point! There's a lot of old lenses I'd like to see a new version of, maybe faster AF and weather sealing - it will be interesting to see what OM systems come up with
I feel the low light is real, but exaggerated though, because it would have to be really dark for f4 not to work. To me the biggest manifestation of the low light issue is that the f1.7 primes stop at 42.5mm. I wish Panasonic did telephoto primes that are not as expensive as the 200 f2.8. And that brings me to the other con and it is that it seems that lens development for the mount has stopped.
There are really only 1 (and a half) downsides of m43; lack of bokeh on zoom lenses, the most you can get is f/1.7 from the Panny 10-25mm and 25-50mm, in FF terms that f/3.4 however f/2.8 zooms are plentiful on full frames. M43 really needs a zoom lens somewhere in between f/2 and f/2.8 with a focal range of 12-75mm. This isn't really up for debate either, most photographers will either want/need background separation at some point; assuming that they'll be content with shooting at f/2.8 on M43 and get f/5.6 ff equivalent bokeh.
My iPhone 12 Pro Max has better low light capabilities than my old D810 full frame. It can see things that a human eye cannot in the dark. The only other full frame that I know of that can do it is a Sony A7Siii. That leads me to think that M 4/3 could potentially be good in low light paired with a fast prime or a pro f2.8 zoom if the body is new enough with the latest technology. I just don’t know if Panasonic or OM is motivated enough to make such a body.
I don’t see many people complaining about phone images. Those sensors are 100x smaller than m43. For me it’s the size that’s kept me here. However influencers always having to promote the latest and greatest sometimes affected my thoughts on m43. I’ve left m43 a few times and never discovered the holy grail of FF that people lead you to believe exist.
Because people have lower expectations for phone cameras so fewer people complain.
Phone cameras are used for quick and disposable pictures not for quality pictures. Nowadays people buy cameras for taking quality pictures.
@@angeloplayforone No, they don't.
Influencers = salesmen.
Never trust any ambassadors or videos with affiliate links.
Phones look like butt. I can always tell
I used mft for about two years a few years ago before moving to FF. I recently came back, and I'm happy with it. Yes there's more noise and less pixels, but I can also fit my whole kit into a small shoulder bag and spent less money on it.
Also, before coming back, I shot with a Canon R6 and then an R5. I expected to be really blown away by having 2.25x the pixel count, but I never felt like the images were better in any real way.
This is my impression also. Given the 4x sensor area and great sounding specs, not to mention the cost of a new FF setup, you expect so much more. I thought that surely the high megapixel count would be really useful for cropping, but I was again a little bit disappointed since that sometimes showed up the limitations of the lenses, but anyway, I rarely cropped by much.
Truth is that sometimes "good enough" is just good enough, and if you get that with MFT, then that's fine. I know I do... I also like APS-C and have had a couple of great cameras with that crop factor too (and still use them).
Are you serious? It's skill issue. Canon R5 can create razor sharp images.
I shoot with oly 10 ii and the Canon EOS R and R6.
And the Canon are way better.
No complain. The R6 is absolut perfect for low light and with the right lens realy sharp. You need L glass or equal.
The dynamic range is on the Canon better. MFT = 12 bit. Fullframe = 14 bit. Than the advantage of the bigger pixel size.
For my professionell work i would never choose MFT for photograph.
And for me its not about depth of field.
What definition is 35mm Full Frame???? Any camera thats captures an image onto its sensor is filling the capture onto its sensor fully??? however, what about the 6 by six . or two and a quarter square cameras, Medium Format, its a marketing con. LOL
@@esterix101 I don't think anyone here is arguing that the R5 isn't a great camera, or that it can't create sharp images, although sharp is more the lens, right? What I said was that going from 20mp to 45mp I was expected to be 'wowed' by the images, to see some magic that I hadn't been able to get with the R6. That didn't happen, the images looked about the same. YES, I could crop more without losing details, but I couldn't realistically crop the 1.5x that the pixel count would suggest because I would start to see the limitations of my lens(on the R6 I'd see the limitations of the resolution first, ie pixelation). What I realize in hindsight is I would have been much happier is I'd taken the money I spent upgrading to the R5 and instead spent it on better glass.
Congrats on 1k! One downside of Micro Four Thirds is the increase I notice in my Gear Acquisition Syndrome 😅 the prices for some lenses are just insane. Same with older cameras. But it’s also a positive: anyone can pick one up and start shooting on a low budget.🎉
Thank you!!
I have noticed that too, I find myself looking at all the small pancake primes and convincing myself I need them 😂
Unfortunately, your GAS helps manufacturers make money with incremental upgrades, which means that's what we'll see.
Great video!
I've found that the Olympus F1.2 Pro lenses (17mm, 25mm, 45mm) are quite good for achieving shallow depth of field on MFT cameras, and the creamy boheh is beautiful. The 75mm F1.8 is also a wonderful (and compact) lens for shallow depth of field, and is well suited for low light events and (some) sports.
But…, looses the size and price advantage of m4/3. For that size and price, there are better alternatives in ff
You were spot on at the end when you made the point that full frame only became the "standard" format because of 35mm film. And if 35mm was considered large enough back when colour transparency was typically 100 ISO (200 ISO max), why is MFT deemed to be too noisy now? Photographers in the film era would have been totally overjoyed with the low light capabilities of MFT.
As for blurred backgrounds. You can get very nice backgrounds with the f1.7 primes at head and shoulders distance, which is when you usually want them.
You also touched on the increased DOF being a positive. This is rarely mentioned but it's an important point since more DOF for the same aperture can negate the low light advantages of full frame. Here's why: if you want more of your scene in focus (which I almost always do) then my MFT's f4 gives me "f8 of full frame DOF" which therefore reduces my ISO by two stops which therefore produces the exact same amount of noise.
So, given all this, for most people, there really isn't any reason to be carrying all that heavy clunky oversized outdated full frame kit any more!
So two things here on mft low light performance.
Stuff being acceptable or even exceptional in the past doesn't really mean acceptable now. I still remember when 480p was considered hq on youtube, and the reason was because in recent memory people did not have tvs that had much resolution beyond that, let alone online streaming. While there are people who debate the need for 4k as opposed to 1080, especially on youtube, I don't hear anyone arguing for 480p because at this point it just looks bad given what we're used to. When it comes to grain, if you look at photos from old magazines you will see a crapload of grain but that's okay because a lot of genres of photography just had it.
Second, chromatic noise from a digital sensor looks awful. If I take a photo in black and white, even on a digital camera that can take color photos, and crank up the iso yeah it looks noisy but its not something that I actually think makes the image look that bad, it has a charm of its own. When your shadows start looking purpley that would bother me.
When I was shopping for my first personal camera, I never considered mft and I regret not looking into it more before buying, but given that I really like night photography I am glad I went full frame.
@@Carthodon There's nothing wrong with the quality of 35mm film at lower ISOs - look at past issues of National Geographic. NG photographers didn't feel it necessary to shoot medium format; not when doing so would compromise the size and weight savings that using 35mm gave them. It's about what is sufficient and MFT is more than sufficient for most people's uses. So while full frame is better in low light, it's a compromise in terms of portability. And the only reason why FF is the size that it is, is that it's a carry over from the old days; and there's really no logical reason for it now that sensors are so good.
@@AlexSegre So I remember past issues of National Geographic, and I've seen the current online version. It is a world of difference. Currently every photo, and I mean every photo, is extremely sharp. In the past when there was no alternative then yeah you looked past the grain. Now it is seen as an artistic choice, but not one which will go unnoticed by most people.
@@Carthodon Like Steve McCurry's Afghan girl, shot on Kodachrome 64 and featured on the cover in 1985? Most people wouldn't notice that it wasn't shot on one of today's digital cameras. The point is, 35mm was deemed sufficiently good quality for NG's photography, which it spent handsomely for. They didn't require their photographers - who were among the world's best - to cart around medium format cameras and lenses.
@@AlexSegre The reason they didn't demand medium format cameras is because they are completely impractical for a lot of photography especially if you're trying to rough it. Hell, I've seen photos with 110 because that was the best they could possibly get and they'd rather have something over nothing especially in a situation where people died if they got caught with a camera.
That doesn't mean that now, in the current day, when we have that image quality that people without it aren't going to be at an immense disadvantage. When you as an institution are getting thousands of photos with very good composition, the first you are going to toss out are those with subpar image quality. What was state of the art in 1985 is not anymore for image quality and as a result the 1985 state of the art does look worse, just like 480p looks worse to our eyes now for video.
And none of this addresses the issue with digital sensors which have chroma noise which looks just bad, because it shifts the actual color of the whole image rather than just create grain. Avoiding that situation is a good deal harder with mft.
Love having discovered MFT and expect to stick with it. Just got a Lumix GX85. I hope OM brings out a fresh PEN PL model. Range finder styles to keep things low key. The everyday/travel is what we need and this is perfect for that as you mentioned. I hope they reverse the trend of making the body sizes ever larger. That is what would end this system before anything else.
First video of yours I have ever seen, and I like you! I like how honest and to the point you are. Like and sub, for sure.
When I read or hear about people nit picking this or that camera format, I can't but help but remember the digital cameras I started out with, and how primitive they were by today's standards, with very low MPixel counts, very few focus points, sensors that were pretty noisy and didn't have great dynamic range. But you know, they were still such fun to use, and I got some absolutely stunning images with that old tech, and these images hold up fine today - because they were interesting images to begin with. Just because the "numbers" or "specs" would be considered laughable by today's standards, some of the results were stunning. (When it comes to taking stunning photos, I'm no better today with new tech than I was back then with caveman digital equipment).
There's really no excuse for down-talking any modern camera. These things are so incredibly fantastic compared to digital cameras from even 20 years ago that it's almost incomprehensible.
That's not to say MFT, or camera brands and theirbizarre camera marketing decisions (product segmentation!) should not be criticised. Instead I'm saying that ... 25 MP? No problem. 20 MP? No problem. 16 MP? Kit lens? No problem! Just get out, have fun, shoot lots and lots, learn the "art" of photography, and you're doing it right. Please, put down the marketing pamphlet, haha.
The analogy that comes to mind is those extremely old blues recordings from the early 1900s, some guy with a beat up guitar that was missing a string or two, recording on the worst microphone ever, and yet some of that music is incredibly stunning to listen to today, in spite of the crappy guitar, all the background noise, and awful recording equipment. Taking a great photograph isn't all that different.
Cheers, and all the best to you.
Congrats on reaching 1k subs. My G9 arrived earlier this week from Japan total cost incl delivery, customs and VAT less than 600Eur shutter count was less than 100. Delighted with it so far the AF is so much better than the GH5. I have some ideas for short films so may keep the GH5 yet.
To your points any system or format is a compromise, I mainly shoot Sony and Lumix (with a little Ricoh/Pentax on the side) and I find FF and MFT compliment each other very well. But there isn’t the gulf in image quality some YT channels would have you believe, honestly you’d have to be printing larger than A1 to see a real life difference. Also if you are the kind of photographer that wants to dabble in different genres of photography nothing quite caters to that like MFT certainly not when you consider size and cost.
Actually, large print needing more Megapixels is a half truth. What people don't take into consideration is viewing distance. The fact is, you shouldn’t and don’t want to print everything at 300dpi. Even a 42MP photo, something that can reliably be blown way up, only spits out a 26-inch x 17-inch print at 300dpi. This is why standard print resolutions rarely get that high. It all comes down to distance. The further away you sit from your screen or a physical print, the lower the print resolution needs to be. So don’t be afraid to take that 42MP photo and blow it up to create a 5 x 8-foot print, you totally can. Just don’t expect some crazy print resolution.
Thank you! I hope you enjoy your G9, I'm hoping to take mine out today
And you're very right, any system has compromise!
Honestly I'd print way larger than A1 with my G9 photos if I had access to a printer that large (or a space to mount them)
I do tend to dabble in a bit of everything, so MFT does suit me well
Regarding the megapixel count: it's worth reminding people that 4K TV sets have about 8Mpx resolution. Now I invite anybody to come and tell me that my 85" 4K TV is somehow blurry or has low resolution ;)
Very true!! People will look at a 60inch 4k TV and say it's sharp, but will say an A1 print is much lower quality!
4k at 85 inches is indeed not the sharpest.
Source: I own a 75 inch thats not the sharpest and an 8K TV that blows it out of the water!
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI I wonder what your viewing distance is, and where you’re getting 8k content to display on that tv :D
My main monitor is 32" 20 MP. So now?
Fantastic and honest video , you rock!
Portrait: Full frame
Night photo: Full frame
Action/Sports: APSC and Action Cams
Landscape: MFT
Travel photo: MFT
Architecture: MFT and APSC
Film: ALL
Vlogging: APSC, MFT and Action Cam.
Price/Quality: MFT
Excellently set, bravo.
Wildlife: MFT
Good luck hiking with a 600mm FF lens
I only shoot in decent light with m43. I don’t want the extra postproduction work of lowlight in this format. For predetermined lowlight conditions I just shoot s5ii. Top notch content creation!
Good content, I agree with your points.
Just some small feedback on your videography: the reflecting lights in your glasses was quite distracting to me as a viewer.
MFT are here to stay for a reason.
Excellent video.
All sensor sizes stand their ground well.
Different horses for different courses.
Much love from Greece, stay strong and blessed.
Thanks for the video. I went MFT for the lighter weight of the system, not so much the camera body but the lenses. I’ve got a defective back. It was a good decision for that. I used to have to work out what lenses to take - max 2 - and there was always regret during the shoot. Now I regularly take 3 (25mm and 45mm primes and 14-140mm) and even the 100-300 as well if I might, just might, need it. I can hand-hold at 300mm (600) without becoming tired. I expected some sacrifices with MFT.
I take your point regarding noise, but I have a 1.4 25mm lens, super light so can be taken everywhere. With a little bit of planning, I find I have never had the problem with noise. I thought I’d be doing a lot of post correcting but not so. If I want a larger image, I move closer.
You are spot-on about the fascination with size of image. The 80meg image (G9) is great. Other than macro, I’ve not used it apart from playing. It is fun though. I have 3 x external HDDs, 20TB, for back up. I struggle now. 80meg images don’t compute for me.
With the 1.4 I have no problem with depth of field. I do a fair bit of flower photography and lack of depth of field is a problem. I do a lot of photostacking. With the stabilising system, I’ve even managed it hand-held.
You are right, so right, about the concentration on the old 35mm film format.
One problem you didn’t mention is the focal length farce. I’ve been trying to teach a grandchild photography. She asks, ‘Why,’ so often and the mess with focal length irritates her. With different frame sizes, we should have a universal measurement. Books and magazines refer to it for 35mm. Mind you, it’s the same with f stops. She understands it is a calculation, but again, why? 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 48. Much more sensible.
I’m Irish as well, and it does seem as if the measurements were invented by a countryman of ours. Certainly not countrywoman (sexist I know, but you know I’m right).
Thanks for the video.
Eli, I have an OM1, but sometimes wonder about buying a FF. I haven't done it yet because of people like you who speak with such common sense, convincing me I don't need it! That doesn't mean I won't buy a FF, because sometimes you buy things not because you need it, but because you just want it! I enjoy your videos so thank you for your work, keep it up.
PS congratulations on your 1000 subscribers.
You're very right, sometimes it's nice to just have nice things!
Thank you for your kind words! 😊
Well, go ahead and buy a D700 or a DF or D4, within Nikon the most legendary in terms of image quality accompanied with any good lens that can even be manual focus of the F mount. And then go take photos in situations low light, sunsets and compare with your OM1 and the OM1 is a much more recent camera.
If you want one camera to do everything including video for a TH-cam channel then MFT micro 4/3 is truly the best choice considering IBIS that lets you hand hold a lot more often which inspires confidence in both photo and video vlogging plus some of the mft lens combos are light for hand held vlogging. I was always unsure until I bought the different formats and kept grabbing MFT cameras to take just in case I wanted great videos and they are always a safe bet if you can only afford one camera system.
Very true! Even on my Em5ii the video is pretty great!
I am moving more of my work from micro four thirds to full frame for 2024. It's been so hard to find lenses this last year in the Philippines for micro four thirds. I still will keep my gh4 gh5 and keep looking for lenses if they ever become available. In the mean time, it is still a great system to keep for travel.
Thanks a lot for showing such a strong commitment to MFT. I believe that there are a couple points where you could serve the MFT cause even better by motivating manufacturers to work on lens selection and their price. For instance, at 6:43, when you say it's the same "amount of light", it is not totally accurate. It's the same 'intensity of light" on the sensor, but altogether the "amount of light" is 4 times less. The 25mm f1.7 at f1.7 has an entrance pupil diameter of 14.7mm. The equivalent FF lens that gives the same angle of view is indeed 50mm, but in order to collect the same amount of light. it must have the same entrance pupil diameter of 14.7mm, and that's f3.4. In fact, shooting a scene on MFT at 25mm, f1.7, and ISO 200 should give almost exactly the same image as shot on an FF at 50mm, f3.4, and ISO 800 (yes, ISO 200 for MFT and 800 for FF), with both pictures shot at same exposure time. Same angle of view, same brightness, same depth of field, and same noise. All of this to highlight that if MFT has weaknesses, it is usually not in the sensor (except perhaps the low megapixel count and high base ISO), but in lens selection and price. One glaring example is on the long end, for wildlife, with cheap lenses that are bad or mediocre and only one acceptable lens that costs an eye watering $7000. In comparison, for FF, a good wildlife lens cost $2000 and there is plenty of choice for good to stellar lenses.
This is the number one problem I have with MFT....the low light gathering affects everything from noise to auto-focus as well. To get low apertures on MFT 1.7 like Leica lenses, they're almost the same size and weight as FF lenses along with the same price ranges as well. Why would someone do that and pay the same amounts for FF setups, except get worse performance out of a MFT system when they could've just went with a comparable system in 2023??? It is beyond me???
Very helpful video.
No camera can take great photos in the dark. You have to choose your shot and light to suit. I have a 20 year old Canon bridge camera which has only 5MP yet I can print to A3 and I frame them. You can only have so many pictures on your walls at any one time unless you want to live in an art gallery, so what I do is print to A4 and file them in plastic sleeves and keep them in binders or box files. Later I can choose a new photo that I would like to display on my walls and so then print them out to A3. The alternative is to just keep them on your computer until you want an A3 print, but there is something about holding a print in your hands that you have just produced and the A4 gives you a good idea of what the A3 will look like as I don’t go in for calibrating monitors and setting print paper profiles etc. I just use trial and error, as I only print on budget paper and use a very inexpensive budget A3 Canon printer (compared to the pro models). This seems to work for me and overall is very much cheaper than going down the professional equipment route. I do have other cameras as well, but the m4/3 ones are a dream to carry about. I will add that all my cameras bar one are used, there is no need to buy new. There are excellent used camera companies out there and you can save a fortune!
I shoot Canon R6mkii and just got the OM-D E-MS iii. Took it out to the woods and did some practicing with it. The only real M43 advantage for me is size, convenience, cost of lenses. The full frame absolutely kills it for image quality in every category. But I have something I can still shoot like a pro and not have to lug 3lbs of camera around and I'm getting much better pictures than a cell phone camera. There's something fun about street photography I like to. M43 makes photography fun again like how it used to be with all the lens choices too.
Nice video, my wife has just brought me a pre loved Olympus OMD EM1 MK III with an Olympus 17mm f1.8 lens for Christmas can’t wait to start using it.
I've heard very good things about that 17mm - I hope you enjoy it!
It is an excellent lens for selfies and whole body portraits.
I loved the video. Thanks for making it. I am pretty invested in micro four thirds and do a ton of street photography with it. I always have an Olympus with me, so it has become sort of my sixth sense to grab a shot or ten (LOL) whenever I see something that tweeks my intrest.
As for megapixel counts, I will use InPixio Photo Maximizer any time I need to upres an image. The results are fantastic and I can enlarge up to 1000 percent. I highly reccomend this software. Its great.
I'd say 'horses for courses'....in my case I have started with aps-c...which I am still using for sports photography, then found my holy grail ....a full frame dslr, but now only use it if I'm going out with my camera for a purpose. But for everyday walk around, street and spontaneous and family photography it is mostly my beloved em5 (original) and really love it (lens options are endless!)....even prefer it over the fuji's, of which I have a few....Great Channel btw...keep up the good work!
Just discovered your channel, and as a micro four thirds system owner for over 10 years, found your video really interesting, so many thanks for sharing your valuable thoughts with us. I happened to be at my camera club last night (I'm a relatively new member) when the chair and his deputy were asked by another member for advice on what small camera they should buy, as they found the weight and size of their FF gear becoming too much. Unbelievably, they didn't give micro four thirds a mention - it wasn't even on their radar, as I'm pretty sure they see it as a system incapable of producing decent IQ and just not up to the job. Not surprisingly I won't be rejoining in 2024, and am now looking for a camera club where MFT is accepted as much as any other system!
Get yourself back in that camera club and show them that micro four thirds IS a very capable system, you have 10 years experience to back that up. By leaving you are validating their lack of knowledge towards M/43. SPEAK UP!
@80z1r Tbh the members were generally not my sort of people anyway - seemed to spend considerable time talking about their latest expensive Canon or Leica acquisitions. The group I'm now with seem more interested in the actual art of photography rather than GAS.
@@robertavery8002
That’s the big problem with camera clubs. Glad you have found one with a real interest in photography or alternatively just do you own thing and try to interest friends and family in the photos you take.
Liked and subscribed. I never had nor used Micro 4/3s. Just a hobby photographer with aps-c fujis, but really enjoyed your comments and ideas on the format.
Cheers!
I think you totally nailed it Eli. Only thing I would add is that the future of M43 has been lets say in some doubt (rightly or wrongly) for quite some time. But then again, look at Canon, EF, EF-S and EF-M mount systems (ergo all Canon DSLR’s) have been dropped, so….
I own 3 cameras in 3 different formats and systems. Fuji X100, Canon 6D and my little Panasonic. Bang for the buck is certainly M43 and I would recommend this system for people coming from a camera phone. The best thing about M43 is definitely the lens choices, but also IBIS (although others are catching up).
But all 3 of my systems have their place and get use. The best thing I like about my X100 and 6D where all mirrorless cameras miss out is the optical viewfinder. Sure, EVF’s and flippy backscreens are nice and certainly useful, but I am an avid old school OVF fan. Cheers 🍻
Edit: I also don’t make videos, so I actually have a preference for camera bodies with fewer features and less buttons that are less fiddly to use, hence my love of the X100 and 6D. They both technically can shoot (kind of) video, but it’s pretty much hidden away 😊
Cheers Mike! I've heard M43 is "dying" so often, but even if the system does dissappear at least there's a vast amount of lenses that'll be on the used market!
I've a super budged M43 camera on the way, which will be interesting to compare to a camera phone in a future video
@@Elifarnhill Exactly the same way I see it!
Nice, that would be a very interesting comparison 👍 😊 Merry Christmas 🎅
@@mike_burke Merry Christmas to you too! 🎄
M43 is also a great system for macro photography.
I switched from a Canon 5D Mk IV to an Olympus EM1 Mk III. I still do have a Canon 5DC with a 40 mm lens.
If you drop formats out of the equation and just look at the image as printed and intended by the photographer then only the image truly counts. The Shows that I’ve created using my Olympus camera have always been well received.
I shoot events under a variety of lighting conditions. Although the end result is perceivably different (to me) when comparing the output from my Canon work to Olympus system, I’ve never had any issues raised by the client over colour or quality of the images.
I’m always amazed and satisfied by the prints that come out of M43 files. I only ever view a print over 100% except for circumstances when I may meet to fix a mask or work on a delicate retouch. Pixel peep less and print more, you’ll be happy that you did.
True enough as I have kept my EM10 II with the 30mm for macro. I have switched back to Fuji now they have IBIS and the 16-80 f/4 does cover a really broad range of situations. The 80mm at f/4 would need f/3 at 60mm in m43 to get the same depth of field and framing. The EM10 IV is a savage hatchet job on the Mk II and any new lens is 'Pro' and priced as such so it is difficult to see how OM are going to carry on. The X-S10 is a smaller and lighter than the G85 which I just never warmed to and the size of the latter is a mystery against the sensor size. Panasonic are showing a considerable lack of interest in the format but then Fuji seem to have abandoned their rangefinders so difficult to know if there is really any safe space in this hobby.
@@michaeld5888 well. As long as the body is functioning and your lenses suit your needs, keep the system going. There’s plenty of solid used gear to replace failed gear.
The reason I shoot with MFT is simple. I can carry my 12-40, 40-150, Simga 30mm and Sigma 56mm, G9 body, and my MacBook or iPad Pro in a 13L messenger. If i had a 15L I could probably fit alot more. Which is perfect for traveling because I can just take the bag with me as carry on luggage
Great point! I've a tiny little lowepro slingshot I use as an everyday camera bag, and I could probably fit all my gear in it if I really tried!
Great video. I have been a micro 4/3 photographer for over 10 years now.
Thank you!
Hi, Great channel! I want to ask you - where do you think is the best place to order camera equipment to Ireland? Any useful online sites you've used? thanks
I love my GH5 and GH2. I love the size of the lenses and the weight of everything. More than anything I find M43 to be just fun to use.
I have tiny sensor cameras, like phone sensor size, 1", MFT, APS-C, and full-frame. It's all about lens combinations as far as noise, fast shutter speed, and depth of field are concerned. But if you make a 12-35mm f/1.4 lens on MFT (in 35mm it's a 24-70 f/2.8), it will perform like that, but also be as big as a normal 2.8 lens on full-frame - the laws of physics (actually, lens design also matters, but still).
The OM-1 MK II has the super-res mode, the pixel shift, which is the tripod mode, and then the image average mode, the handheld 50 MP mode. It takes 16 images and combines them with super resolution.
MFT can do everything, except fast motion in low light, over distance, simply because it doesn't have fast telephoto lenses. For this, full-frame with its 2.8 telephoto lenses is better. Even APS-C lacks f/1.8 zoom lenses, since Sigma Art lenses are for DSLR and not mirrorless.
Shots of the moon: you take 200 shots and make it super high resolution on the computer with free software. However, the P1000, even with its phone-sized sensor, is best for moon shots due to its 3000mm lens, and then you clean it up by image averaging. google moon P1000 images.
The first point (noise reduction software) was something I have using to rationalize a MFT system but haven’t seen actual results on other YT channels, so really appreciate those examples 👍🏼
Hey Eli, thanks for your insights. Very true. I just got an M1X so to compensate the small package but not too small...coming from full-frame (Pentax K1-II, Leica SL, Canon 5DII... which are still with me...) but wanted to have a try with M43, and enjoying the experience. So who the hell cares of sensor formats. Every system has its pro and cons... the end result being the pleasure of doing the best picture you can, and with whatever tool you might have. I still have and kept, by the way, also, my Fuji XT1... Pleasure takes many shapes :-))
For those that worry about a shallow depth of field with MFT... get a "portrait camera". An example would be a used Nikon D600, D700, or D800 with a Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D lens. Not a lot of money for what you get from it. Perfect compliment to your MFT system. Just use that camera for portraits, like I do, and you're set.
Tbh, get an S5, especially if you use g9. So so cheap.
I do, D700 here! Nice classic DSLR.
Why buy a separate portrait camera when you can just get one Full Frame or APS-C camera that can do it all?
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI I got all and nearly always use mft. APS-c is no different from mft. I got the g9 II and XT-5 , low light is the same, because the xt has 40mp and DOF is so close. FF is differnt but not better, it dependent on what you shoot.
@@Katalu Full frame in low light is fare better than MFT, sorry. I use both systems and I know what I'm talking about. And there are hundreds of well-made videos, with honesty and when the systems are subjected to challenging light conditions, full frame has better quality, there can be no doubt about that.
Liked and sub'd! Started with aps-c, then went FF, then back to aps-c and finally landed on m43. The IBIS, FPS, and focal length "reach" (FFE) make it the perfect platform for the sort of shooting I do now.
Thank you very much for the like and sub! The IBIS for me is a massive plus, being able to take 4 second exposures handheld is amazing
As someone who started in 35mm film cameras, now using M4/3, there is an age old solution to noise, and that is to us a lower ISO with a good old tripod. This is not all encompassing particularly with moving subjects such as in sports, but tripods should not be discounted. Modern OIS and IBIS technology have vastly improved the low light abilities of these cameras when on the move.
I think in good light, M43 never disappoints. Great features, great lenses, etc. poor marketing has hurt their trajectory, but the quality is significant. My only complaint is high-contrast sundown/landscape scenes. I can’t get those right with M43, likely my error. Love the E-M5 Mark II and 12-45 F4 Pro.
The E-M5 Mark II is the problem. I did a comparison "shoot" and dawn with lots of light sources in the shot (a small Japanese Lantern Festival) with E-M5II and an E-M1II - and the differences were huge! The E-M1II behave better in every aspect, especially less shadow noise and much more details in the highlight areas! Look out for a used E-M1II or E-M5III (or at least try to borrow one of these models to see if the one or other solves your problem).
@@c.augustin Interesting. I guess the 20MP sensor in the cameras you reference noticeably outperforms the 16MP sensor of the E-M5 II? I will try to get my hands on one of the newer ones. Thanks.
@@pouchboy1 It is not only the sensor, also the analog pre-amplifiers and A/D converter. More modern cameras are better in dealing with the sensor signal. And high-end models are better than mid-range ones - my Olympus Pen F (also a 20 MP sensor) can't hold a candle to the slightly older E-M1II. The new Lumix G9II seems to have a still better dynamic range and better low-light performance than other MFT models (and 25 MP resolution, which is plenty - I might buy a used one the moment I can afford it).
I am one of those who is pretty happy with his EM5 at concerts. Cameras need light. Could care less about "low light" performance. Also happy with it with strobes/flashes and available "natural" light. 😊
I've yet to take my Em5 to a gig, but I brought my G9 and my 25mm and it honestly performed great!
@@ElifarnhillI'd totally recommend! I'm using my classic E-M5 and if you want to see something you can expect from a crappy lightning situation in a concert, i've done a few this December (@luzbiensuave in case you wanna check out). So pretty much worst case scenarios: ISO 6400 (my max usable) and 1/10 to 1/100 shutter speed. And still looks pretty good! I'm talking just Christmas lights with some reflectors, or basic ambience. I'm sure stadiums or bigger gigs would be easy peasy.
And when I mean worst case scenarios I'm taking into account I only use vintage lenses, so f/2 to f/3.5 at the widest end (at least the ones I own) and only manual focusing. If I can land it safe I'm sure anyone can with enough creativity.
But I gotta admit, crushing the blacks and getting freaky with color helps a lot. Also ETTR as much as you can! Cheers!
Ff to 4/3 will be a challenge. Going from 4/3 to FF is amazing. They both have their merits. People disagree with me on this buuuut, my 4/3 helped me buy my house. It does the job just fine
I know this post is 5mo old, but I recently switched from FF to m4/3. I personally enjoy the experience a lot more because they are much lighter and smaller than FF
Hard to tell in the video, but my Fujifilm XT-5 is about the same size. Their lineup of f2 primes are pretty compact. Fully weather sealed. 40mp APSC sensor. IBIS. Beautiful color science. May be worth a look.
Fuji have great cameras and lenses, but much more expensive than m4/3. For the budding amateur m4/3 can’t be beaten, especially if you buy used. I got a Lumix camera with lens for £99! Money doesn’t buy you better photography, only the photographer can do that. Later they can graduate to other makes, sensor sizes if they need too. I have 5 different cameras, all used (and used) for different purposes.
@@petercollins7848 I have a lot of M43 cameras and lenses gf2,om10, om5, om5mk2, I have never been really happy with the output of any of these cameras , it seems difficult to get photos that are acceptable , they are either under or over exposed, too dark in darker areas and honestly on my last trip I resorted to using my phone , a pixel 3 , it took much better photos than I have managed using any M43 camera and 99 percent were acceptable, I bought an old fuji X20 for less than any of these M43 cameras and lens cost me and it's only a 12mp camera with a 28-112 f2-2.8 integrated lens and the photos are great , I mean magnitudes better than any of the M43 cameras I own, the fuji is light,compact and performs very well and the lens produces great results, I travel and carrying around all my M43 lenses etc is just a pain , the fuji is a great solution to my requirements for a travel and I am very happy with it
11:00 minutes in. Your reasons are perfect for an enthusiast/hobby bird photographer.
Luv the M43 system, but your speaking facts… Just subscribed !!!
Thanks for subscribing!
I have been using M4/3 on and off (mostly on!) since the GF-1 and I love the system. It's just a shame both Olympus and Panasonic have stopped making small cameras recently, or at least it has slowed down considerably. Let's hope we get a few new additions or updates in 2025! I would love to see a small Olympus with a monochrom only sensor! They could make it look like and call it the Olympus Trip M. 😁
Try using the olympus 75 mm f1.8 with your G9. Sweet sweet bokeh
I enjoyed the video, it was well done. I suspect that the 24 by 36mm, 35mm full frame became the norm because most people had been shooting 35mm film. And I have never been a big megapixel fiend since three of my biggest prints, 24 by 36 inches were from 5.1 MP JPEGs.
i use my g9 and gx85 for over 3 years, it was my beginning of photography.
since a half year i use a fullframe system.
with m43 i had more joy but the fullframe images are so much better.
so for me joy against iq.
but it is a nice feeling to come down from a spot and know, you can do everything with the shots.
on the other side my m43 gear i had often with me, my fullframe is often at home.
and i recognized how good the leica and pro lenses was!
I moved back to M43 because of the larger DoF. I now have the OM-1 with BSI Sensor, the noise is pretty good and the Hi-Res Handheld Mode 50 MPix is fantastic! The 100-300 lens u mentioned was not that great to me, i had it. i now have the 40-150 Oly Pro which is super sharp.
I think you summed it up when you made the point that if people are looking at the noise then it may not be an interesting photo. Same holds true for all aspects. If people are concerned with what equipment captured the image then it may not be a compelling image. Of course nerds and photo-geeks like us will always be concerned with the gear used but really that is the least important aspect of a good photograph.
I came from FF to M4/3. While it’s true that M4/3 is performing poorly in low light, a lot of the noise issue can be solved with software.
My photography has improved a lot since switching to M4/3 because I always take a camera with me now and a couple of small primes. For normal photography and if you are an amateur M4/3 is more than capable. This gear will not hold you back.
I have mft as my system for several reasons:
× I was given the gx9 with some lenses as a gift
× generally lighter and smaller than apsc and digital small format (marketed as full frame) at the kit level
× following from that, a lower environmental impact overall compared to other systems
× useability: small gear goes with you more often then bigger and hefty
× price (in general but there are exceptions...)
Like you I do not have a lot of low light work and interests.
The pixel shift technology is something I seldom use on my G9 but if I would go for a 40 megapixel image then there would be room to crop and have a 20megapixel image in the end.
I rarely use the high res mode on my G9 too, mainly for moon photos where my 100-300 isn't long enough so I crop in a lot
Great video. Yes MFT depth of field is both a strength and a weakness. Good point.
I am a big fan of small camera systems, especially weatherproof ones. My back thanks me for it.
One subtle con I find with MFT is latitude. This is inevitable with a small, dense sensor. (Imagine a 20Mp MFT sensor would be 80Mp in full frame.) This relative weakness compared to bigger sensors doesn't show up in all pictures, but it is there sometimes.
It's just another small trade-off that I am willing to live with for a small, tough, beautifully competent system. Like any system, you just have to know how to use it. I can get great photos with MFT and I like the form factor and ergonomics.
I find no 'cons' with my Oly E-M1 mark ii.
My reason for switching to m4/3 was because of Vintage lenses & IBIS - Canon/Nikon/Sony cost waaaaay too much for IBIS.
Now I have 24 lenses and actually enjoy the hands-on approach to using them, and all for a total cost (with s/h body) of under £1800 .
I will now be selling my 700d, 7d2 and M5.
P.S. The reason for FF sensors is not because of the film format - it was because the original prototype digicams were made with 35mm format lenses.
I have been a Fuji and Sony full frame shooter for years. Two of my buddies who are the best photographers I know (former National Geographic photographers) carry their MFT camers and lenses in a fanny pack while I lug gear in a huge back pack. No more. I went MFTrds six months ago and after a trip to Spain with my OM-1 and three lenses in my fanny pack I came home and sold all the Sony gear. Still have my Fuji gear because I can't let them go. But full frame for 8-10 prints and the interest is a joke.
Fuji does not have full frame.
Not sure about micro 4/3" but on my Sony camera the use case of multi pixel plexing technology works when I have the camera sitting like a rock on the tripod or when I can shot with very fast shutter speed, otherwise single shot (if possible plus AI upsize) will be better alternative.
Yes, as you mention, I don't think I've seen _any_ camera that does not have noise at ISO 25,600. I use DxO PhotoLab 7 for noise reduction. Lumix should bundle that software with the camera and nobody would mention noisy MFT. MFT is so nice. I carry 16-800mm equiv. in my camera bag everywhere I go. For $2K, I get great weather sealing and ruggedness. The equivalent in FF is crazy heavy and expensive for body and lenses. I love the G9ii so far. The G9 feels better in the hand and has the top screen, but other than that, I'm quite the fan. Congratulations on 1K. Good luck!
You obviously haven't tried the latest noise reduction in Adobe Camera Raw. I recently shot hummingbirds in flight at 25,600, ran the raw file through Topaz and the noise was a mess. I then tried Adobe Camera Raw and the super fine feather detail in the hummingbird wing looked more like a 400 iso image. Adobe finally woke up from their long slumber and released ACR 17.0 in October, so noise is no longer an issue with m43.
I just saw a six megapixel image put through Topaz AI where he can upscale the megapixels by Scott Bourne. The photograph had excellent detail in the fur of the dogs he photographed. I think Scott Bourne used to be an Olympus ambassador.
Interesting I'll have to check out the video!
I've used topaz a bit, mainly for noise reduction, but the up scaling is pretty great - I've been shooting with a GF3 for a bit recently which has a 12MP sensor, I can upscale with topaz and as long as you don't try to upscale too much you get natural looking results
Gateway drug to micro four thirds is the Nikon 1 system.
Using the Nikon 1 V3 opened my eyes to the use cases for smaller cameras that have small sensors and small lenses.
The only thing driving me away from the V3 right now is that it's the last of the line, 95% of the lenses are auto-focus only, and you can't use off camera flash with it.
Micro Four Thirds has its limitations and for some, these are a show stopper...but for me, the advantages out weigh the disadvantages. I shot a lot of extreme outdoor macro, where MTF is king. Hiking up mountains means every ounce is important to me and I can carry pro level glass at a fraction the weight of full frame pro level glass. I overcome limitations with techniques. For example, I shoot most landscapes using bracketing and panoramas. I needed to learn how to do this to get great results but I now have it mastered. The computational capabilities of the Olympus cameras are very very useful (Exposure Bracketing to +- 6 stops, focus bracketing, live nd, live composite, etc.) and can not be matched by any other system. Autofocus and Subject detect is still not the best but have made huge improvements in the most recent models. Its simply a matter of engineering and time. Oh, I normally hike during the day when low light is not an issue. I also find that post processing is the great equalizer. As long as I can fill the frame, be in focus and the image is shape I can make up for everything else in post. All in all I love the system. It does exactly what I want.
As one of the old "guys" (LOL) who has been taking photos since 1978 and who is interested in the MFT format, I must say that the biggest draw back that I see in the quality of MFT (and incidentally in the APSC and full frame formats also) is the bit depth. There is a "gritty-ness" (sorry for the neologism) or choppy look to the colors in the MFT images. Color variations do not seem to transition smoothly in the 12 bit rendering. This is very easy to see if we make an extreme comparison between a 12 bit MFT image and Fuji’s “medium” format which is 16 bit. I’m guessing that the smoothness in the medium format images is not because of the pixel size but rather the bit depth. After all, the pixel size in the Fuji GFX 100S-II 101Mp is 3.78 micron versus 3.34 micron in the (Olympus) OM System OM-1-II. The “smoothness” in the color transitions of the 16 bit images are very noticeable. Thanks for your video!
6:50
not the "same amount of light"
the same intensity of light
but
abouth 1/4th of area FF sensor's
if you focus entire FF image on MFT sensor you'll get the ~2 stop improvement in light intensity
I used to be one of those who believe that FF is the holy grail of photography, nowadays even micro 4/3 seems huge because of lenses and a premium compact is all i really need most of the time. People praise the FF for its shallow depth of field above everything only because they can't be bothered to learn composition and blurring most of the background away is the easiest way to go. I was one of those people too but since ive learned to stop down and think more about what i include and exclude from my frame, my need for FF decreased dramatically. I would use my phone for 99% of my photography if the ergonomics was any better.
Full frame _is_ "better" in lots of ways. Fwiw I suspect the difference between m43 and APSC is not that big in terms of noise / dynamic range (open to correction there).
I use m43 myself cause i can carry two smaller m43 cameras - one with a 20mm prime, the other with a 35-100mm lens - together they fit in a tiny camera bag (cm: 18x12x8 / 7"x 5"x 3"). Now i wonder how heavy and big the FF equivalent would be ...
I hear you. Instant sub. Keep it coming.
re. best use cases (8:42): travel, everyday walkabout, street - because size, weather sealing, durability. You kind of missed value for money. It's easily half price of any other comparable system for enthusiast usage at least, and the hybrid video options and IBIS simplifies a lot of sessions, no matter what you're shooting.
Thanks for the sub! Loads more content coming this year!
You're spot on, especially with the used market!
What softwaee do you use? I am currently getting the g9 with a 25mm then i bought the 45-150mm lenses. Mainly for sports for my son.
I shoot Fujifilm APS-C and used to shoot 35mm film. Film had MANY limitations that we don't today: ISO 100/200/400 and 800 (grainy), so I had to use either flash, tripod, and/or low shutter speeds to get a decent picture. Enlarging to 20"x30" was grainy, even with the best techniques.
I feel that today's MFT sensor cameras are probably equivalent to 35mm film or maybe even 645 medium format film with regards to pure resolution. We can debate forever on "look", so let's not go there.
In short, we are SWIMMING in cheap, incredibly capable photo tech today. The limitations on "getting the perfect shot" is not in the camera anymore -- it's on the photographer.
Larger DOF is an advantage when you shoot macro, wildlife, and landscape, which is what I like to do. For portraits, F1.8 lens and below do excellent work. The only downside will be fast action in low light, but you cannot have everything, I guess.
Strongly disagree on wild life. There is a reason all the most successful wild life photographers are using 600mm f/4 which cost around 15,000 to 20,000 $, depending on the system.
It's a bit noisy at ISO 12560? When I was learning photography, ISO 1200 was specialist fast film, and that it was grainy as hell was just a fact of life.
ISO in analog is not what ISO in digital photography is. ISO is not affecting "sensitivity" in digital camera sensors. It's a computational feature that applies an "electronic gain" to the sensor data, to push the light. Unfortunately, this also pushes the noise.
@photoxisch well obviously they aren't the same, but they are broadly equivalent: 1/125s exposure at f5.6 about the same on ISO 400 whether we're talking about film or sensors. Where it differs is that electronic sensors- even small, 15year old ones- out-perform film by 2 or 3 stops. Certainly, new full-frame sensors are indistinguishable from magic: see Emily's new (Dec 2024) m4/3 vs FF video where she pulls details from horribly underexposed spur of the moment shots taken at a wedding party, resulting in lively colours without a hint of noise. Conclusion: modern sensors are forgiving of exposure to the point where you could set shutter purely based on desired motion blur/lack thereof, and aperture purely on required DoF, and do 'exposure' almost as a separate variable in post-production using the camera's amazing dynamic range. None of that changes the fact that even a first-generation m4/3 camera is 2-3 stops (2-3 times) more forgiving than film was back in the day. My point is, when I was first taking photography seriously 30+ years ago, to take 36 exposures (call it 38 or 39, I was pretty good at loading my camera with minimum waste) at ISO 1200, I had to pay something like a 2x premium on the price of the film, and commit to taking the whole roll at that ISO. If you told me then that a camera was bad because its images got noisy above ISO 12560, my first thought would be that there was a typo, and you were talking about a type of ISO 1200 film that had an oddly specific third significant figure in its rating. The idea that there could be a sensor that's 3+ stops faster (we'll ignore reciprocity failure) than a fast film, and that people would quibble about image quality in low light would have been fantasy. It's not surprising that newer FF sensors are better than 15 yo M4/3 sensors. Newer M4/3 sensors are also better, if not by the same degree as newer FF (low light performance being one of the areas were FF is at an advantage rather than a disadvantage compared to M4/3). Of course top of the range cameras from 2024 are much better than mid/top range cameras from 2010. That doesn't negate the fact that those 2010 cameras were similarly more advanced than equivalents from the early days of digital cameras (remember when 2mp was considered good? And then when 3.2mp was the new benchmark and suddenly 2mp was rubbish?). As someone who's traveled in time from the late 1980s, I'm telling you that a bit of noise at ISO TWELVE THOUSAND! is a limitation that I can accept in a cheap second-hand camera.
As for new 4/3 sensors resolution, there's the Gigajot 4/3 40Mp for low light imaging and already about 5 stops better than the best FF sensor, or anything else for that matter. These new 4/3 sensors are being developed for vehicles in Israel and at Cambridge and as yet only as scientific cameras. We will not see them in consumer cameras for a while but with noiseless sensitivity of about half a photon, they are going to be a game changer.
In England just now we are "enjoying" one of the worst winters ever with record rainfall and little sun. My Panasonic GX9 definitely performs better in good light but I'm having great success this year with a couple of workarounds. I film in RAW usually with about +2/3 exposure compensation. Processing is in DXO photolab using ClearView plus settings down somewhere between 15-25 on the slider and DeepPrime noise reduction again turned down between 8-20. This has absolutely cut through the gloom with very pleasing results. I found the in-camera JPEG processing very poor by comparison. You also need a decent lense.
I've had the EM1X and the Pen F but that's when I shot for myself and a hobby, but I've sold them a couple of years ago as I now shoot for clients mainly in lowlight at high iso and there is no way I would use MFT.
It's a great system but it's limited in certain situations, and I think when others are relying on your images, you just won't choose MFT.
I am returning to system cameras now after several years using mainly a phone. The phones lack in low light, lack in zoom capability, lack in low light, lack in colour reproduction. I came from a Nikon D50 with a 5Mp CCD sensor.
So… your cons are mostly pros for me. I used the D50 for freelance journalist photography, and sometimes got a full page in print. The megapixels mostly is no problem unless you need to crop.
Sensor size is only really important (from my experience) in wildlife photography. nearly everything else, if properly exposed and/or processed, will be fine. Especially using modern noise reduction. I shot some of my favourite images with an 8 mpx camera, and they stand up to my current images.
Excellent thoughts, totally agree with the medium format comment. Why aren't there more videos saying that medium format is better than FF its always FF looking down on APSC or MFT !
The 300 F4.0 may be the sharpest lens on the market. Simply stunning resolution. As long as you can fill the frame and be in focus you are going to have an amazing shot. This lens may have done more for bring pros to MFT for wildlife shooting then anything else. I even beats the 150-400.
i am currently considering fuji i have to say. xt2 or xt3 used to be exact. right now i am on m43 (well it just happens because i came back to photography and i just got the cheapest camera i could find really)
while in theory, i enjoy a lot of the benefits m43 brings, and i like the 4:3 format and i have no issues overall, what kind of kills a lot of my enjoyment is the... absolute garbage... handling of ISO of m43. its actually ridiculous. i look at images i took with my old nikon d90 back 15 years ago, and its less noisy at like iso 1250 than my m43 is at like iso400. it feels unreal how bad the m43 handles iso really. it limits me so much that pretty much all i can shoot is pure daylight. early morning? forget it, evening? forget it, indoors? forget it. just sitting in my kitchen right now wich is brightly lid with a window open and my m43 already needs to bump up the iso to around 1600 wich creates so incredibly noisy images, losing all detail and ruining colors that, ngl... it doesnt look much better than my smartphone.
so my alternative idea was a used a7ii maybe, but it has many drawbacks too. like only 5fps burst mode, lenses are more expensive and larger and missing so many features.
then i look at a used fuji xt2 or xt3 wich can be had for around the same price, and it retains a lot of the form factor and small lenses and lightweight and whatnot the m43 offers, it has amazing burst mode and it still does not outright suck in everything above 800 iso like the m43 does, so it kind of looks as if it strikes the perfect middle ground.
Maybe a bad copy? My iso noise wasn’t too bad.
i value camera weight and size very important, i was considering a micro four thirds, until i came across small apsc and full frame cameras. like now we have canon r10, r50, r8, sony zve10, zve1, a7c all just as small and lightweight . lenses is the problem but nowadays theres alot of compact full frame lenses coming, like the canon rf 28mm f2.8, rf 16mm f2.8. these and many more makes micro four thirds a harder choice. anyway good video.
It seems to me that m4/3 camera bodies have got larger. The reason I went this route was for a smaller form factor. But love the small lenses.
Fast glass makes a significant difference on MFT - the Zuiko Digital SHQ glass is superb, if you can find it, but you have to accept the size difference between it and MFT lenses. And fast manual glass too, both vintage and modern.
Full Frame or what they called it back in the 40's & 50's,,,, Miniature Photography! Good vid/ good points.
Interesting!
Thanks for the kind words!
for landscape, i want maximum depth of field and if i want shallow, i use my panaleica 42.5 f/1.2.
TBH all MFT needs is some fast telephotos like f2, when E-M1 X came out I thought they would bring out an f2 prime or zoom telephoto
For me the main cons is DOF and ISO, but ISO with the latest Panasonic camera, with the G9II it's no more a problem.
Indeed DOF, compare to FF or even APS-C, you must be at least 1.5 f more open to have similar DOF
Low light performance depends on what type of photography you are doing and which lens you’re using.
Very true!
I found Photoshop's new AI tools for RAW files seems to even the playing field in regards to low light performance/resolution for Micro 4/3. Frankly I don't see much difference between M43 and APS-C with stills and video tends to be superior compared to my Canon M6.
Same with me, the new AI Denoise gives astonishingly good results and improves the overall quality. But it is quite slow on my (underpowered) machines.
@@c.augustin agree with both of you. I shot a band and one of my images was at 6400 ISO. I never use that high of ISO but I was trying auto ISO at the time. The AI denoise cleaned it up and it looked amazing.
Interesting reflections. But I disagree with the issue of noise and the limitation of sensor size. Size matters, without a doubt, but so does the quality of construction and supporting circuitry. To assess reality, you would have to take the same photos between a micro four thirds, APS-C and full frame camera. My experience is that there is not such a big difference (compared to the new 20 megapixel models from OM System, the OM1 and OM5). Furthermore, the noise of the new micro four-thirds sensors is less chromatic, like more grain from the old photosensitive film. I invite you to watch the following videos, with real evidence that will surely surprise you:
Noise:
th-cam.com/video/KPPYDAgwmsE/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/EYaP0pvCFZs/w-d-xo.html
Dynamic range:
th-cam.com/video/-HkDlkdxaQs/w-d-xo.html
PS: The difference in high ISOs between my EM5MarkII (Olympus) and my OM5 (OM System) is huge. At 6400 ISO my OM5 works better than the M5MarkII, because I hardly have chromatic noise, only a film-like grain (if in the M5MarKII I try to shoot below 1600ISO, with the OM5 I am not worried about shooting at 6400ISO or more)
i would agree on the low lights. when time is an issue or that the computer is not available, then it is a huge disadvantage.
I got the R5 and the G9II .. and the R5 has much better auto focus for moving subjects, its as small as the G9II. So if i just want a 50mm with low depth of field its the better choice. But for longer lenses i like MFT, and for video the G9II looks better to me, and better IBIS that once again comes in handy with video. So it depends on what i am shooting that day.
I use both full frame and M43 - for me they have distinct use cases., that don't really overlap. In overall
I guess it’s a good time to do a respective comment on the state of m4/3
It’s still popular in many areas of the world.
Panasonic sells more than OM systems and their market share is shrinking. Perhaps as I have been told the name change created a disconnect with camera shoppers.
It appears Panasonic is focusing more and more with releases and shifting engineers to the L frame systems. How long will the continue to support a shrinking m 4/3 market
OM system appears to be struggling. The pipeline seems dry and having sigma produce a massive FF lens with m4/3 mount and controls at a much higher price hurts.
A 90mm macro lens for a niche market ? The OM-1 mark ll is just a small help with what shoot ( wildlife ). I still use the 1x body over my OM-1 as it has the things I want on it. So why not a version ll bigger buffer or/and support for express cards ? Is the the 25 megapixel sensor. It’s an amazing camera
I agree with your points but still love my EM1 Mark III. I sell my work on-line and at galleries and no one ever asks me what camera I shoot with, just other photographers who don't buy art work, lol
Nice video! :) I've been shooting with Olympus gear since 2013. I Love the system. But... if need arises to shoot in dimly lit conditions I am forced to use my Sony A7s. Still, this applies when shooting dance or fast moving subjects in low light conditions (with f1.8 primes at speeds of 1/400 - 1/800). Overall, the system is Great! Hope Om systems and Lumix come up with something revolutionarty, cause the lenses of FF are, usualy, Heavy. :)
if OM/lumix truly embraced the small nature of the sensor and dominated the compact market, I feel like they would just fair so much better in a market that's more orientated towards FF
I bought canon 5D and sold Nikon 600D and sold, canon RP and sold. Only constant is EM1 mark 2. This low light shit for me is like buy a bunker for dooms day instead of a house .. MFT does all as long as you don’t want to play guitar like a drum . Every tool is specific , what we need it to act like FF FFS ( love the video btw)
With all this advancement have we created any Diane Arbus Robert Capps or Henri Carter ? It’s only art form where gear has taken over
I would add that the lack of third party manufacturers investing in the system puts downward pressure on innovation (the same arguments being made in relation to canon with the RF mount). The m43 lens lineup is pretty old now, which is fine if you don’t want anything else, but if you do want more modern lenses… (my favourite lens is the canon 70-200 f/4 from 2001, but just saying). I’ll be interested to see what OM a system comes out with when they’ve run out of Olympus blueprints.
That's a great point! There's a lot of old lenses I'd like to see a new version of, maybe faster AF and weather sealing - it will be interesting to see what OM systems come up with
I feel the low light is real, but exaggerated though, because it would have to be really dark for f4 not to work. To me the biggest manifestation of the low light issue is that the f1.7 primes stop at 42.5mm. I wish Panasonic did telephoto primes that are not as expensive as the 200 f2.8. And that brings me to the other con and it is that it seems that lens development for the mount has stopped.
There are really only 1 (and a half) downsides of m43; lack of bokeh on zoom lenses, the most you can get is f/1.7 from the Panny 10-25mm and 25-50mm, in FF terms that f/3.4 however f/2.8 zooms are plentiful on full frames. M43 really needs a zoom lens somewhere in between f/2 and f/2.8 with a focal range of 12-75mm. This isn't really up for debate either, most photographers will either want/need background separation at some point; assuming that they'll be content with shooting at f/2.8 on M43 and get f/5.6 ff equivalent bokeh.
My iPhone 12 Pro Max has better low light capabilities than my old D810 full frame. It can see things that a human eye cannot in the dark. The only other full frame that I know of that can do it is a Sony A7Siii. That leads me to think that M 4/3 could potentially be good in low light paired with a fast prime or a pro f2.8 zoom if the body is new enough with the latest technology. I just don’t know if Panasonic or OM is motivated enough to make such a body.