5 Reasons to Choose Micro 4/3 over Full Frame
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- Here are the 5 best reasons that I came up with to choose a micro 4/3 camera over a full frame camera. Hopefully you guys understand and don't unsubscribe just from the title. This video does NOT claim that micro 4/3 cameras are better than full frame, it's simply a video listing off 5 reasons why a micro 4/3 camera might be better for you (as it is for me.)
Where I Get My Music - soundstripe.com/
FOLLOW ME!
Instagram - goo.gl/kFqf1X
Twitter - goo.gl/HGkPoR
TH-cam - goo.gl/4HHNFC
Website - goo.gl/p2AqG6
Email me at tom@itstomryan.com
The sensor size doesn't affect depth of field. It's matching focal length equivalents that affects it. A 50mm f/2 will have the exact same depth of field on a micro four-thirds sensor as it would on a full frame. The only thing that will be different is the angle of view due to the 2x crop factor on micro four-thirds. To get the same angle of view as a 50mm on full frame, you need a 25mm on micro four-thirds. Since wider lenses intrinsically have a deeper depth of field, that 25mm f/2 will look like a 50mm f/4 on full frame. _That's_ where the difference comes from. It has nothing to do with the sensor and everything to do with the lens.
@@MysticCaravan That comment adds nothing.
This is exactly correct. Ye cannae break the laws of physics. If you want that shallow depth, put the longer lens on and move back from the subject.
DoF is also partly lens design. For many years top lens makers like Leica strived to get the sharpest images with deep depth. Now they want bokeh which you can get from a cheap lens.
I've got a 400mm Tokina (adapted, all manual) that has about ½-inch DoF at 20 metres, useless for wildlife but great for astro. The adapted Sigma Bigma 50-500 "'for Olympus 4/3" has far better DoF. There are lens design factors. DoF is not solely lens length and aperture, but it is not sensor size.
yes. i stopped the video after i heared what he says about that. it's garbage.
yah, but the cost of a 25mm f0.9 is kind of high compared to a nifty fifty
I stopped the video and subscribed to your channel, bro.
Love my GH5 and GH5s. But in the end it's not the camera it's the creator.
Gh5s it's incredible camera for low light !!!!!!
The best camera is the one you're holding. It's what you do with it.
I generally stuff an E-PL7 with a GX PZ14-42 in my pocket but an still happy shooting film.
I had a fukn camcorder. Colors are so ugly. Have to color correct the footage for hours. I never got natural colors. Now I got the BMPCC4K. I can now even publish without even touching the colors. Natural looking. Good details of my shot. Even the 4K footage can be edited without a lag on my computer. Ooof.. Ok.. Not the camera.. I'm the one to blame..!
This statement has been debunked so many times. You just can't get the same results from a 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 as you can from a 85mm f/1.2. Once the creator's abilities outperform the camera's functionality, gear makes a significant difference.
Yes, I agree. I use FF, but have the GH5s and prefer it for all the reasons you state. Sensible argument and well delivered 👍🏼
The big issue with gh5 is the autofocus issues well I came across a piece of info that if you change the degree of shutter from 180 to 179 it will resolve the focus issue that everyone complains about. try this and let me know if this works for you all :)
I have taken good photographs on a Pentax Q (1/2.3", 5.53x crop) with a f/9 body cap lens...and indoors. I feel like full-frame has become a sort of status symbol that says "I have a lot of money to blow on camera gear and want you to know it." There are some advantages to it, but the gap has largely closed at this point. Next-gen MFT cams like the GH5S with native dual ISO make the 5Dmk4 look like a crippled bulky joke, particularly in the video arena. I liken it to people who buy big lifted pickup trucks: it's showy and there are a few situations it's objectively superior for, but most of the time it's an overpriced, oversized, and inconvenient way to get the same job done.
Solid points!
Ok, I feel better now, I just bought a Canon sx740 with a 1 2/3" sensor 40x optical zoom and I find it takes beautiful picts, my friend keeps on telling me it is not as good as his Sony point and shot also but with a 1 inch sensor, I tell him yeah but you dont have 40x optical zoom, lol and same thing with the bikes, I ride road bike and have an aluminum bike but some people spend thousands on a carbon because it weighs less, the difference? 5 pounds less maybe, so I tell them just loose 5 pounds and save the extra money!
Yeah that may be true now, but when canon catches up on sensor tech they will blow sony/panasonic out of the water. Physics dictates that a larger sensor size at the same resolution is going to provide more photons per pixel and thus better image quality.
Canon is also coming out with a TINY full frame body soon. They're not using crop sensors at all anymore from here on out.
@@LarsLarsen77 The body size doesn't matter much because full-frame optics will still have to be large and a big sensor brings battery life, overheating worries, and annoying shallow focus depths by default.
I'm so glad there's someone on TH-cam who gets the value in this format. We don't need blindingly blurred backgrounds, night vision, or to look/sound fancy while going into debt. We just need good images, that's it.
Real filmmakers don’t blur the background like these wannabe “cinematic” dudes with a full-frame or aps-c filming wide open even in their bedroom filled with LED rgb lights 🙈🤦🏻♂️
Finally somebody who gets it, particularly about depth of field.
Ahaha right on, brother. It took me a while, but I'm ready for the 4/3 revolution aha
Philippe Orlando *was gonna make a similar comment.. this is what happens when camera nerds wise up and think about practicality.
Ahaha, it took me a while. I used to shame the GH5 and say it was crap because it couldn't do good low light. Then the GH5s came out and I didn't really care because the A7S ii was still better. Then I realized how much more valuable 4k at 60fps, 10-bit 422, good IBIS, and all the other features the GH5 has to offer for way cheaper than the Sony cameras are. Well, I actually have a surprise, I'll be revealing it soon 😋
Even in photography. I was going through some national geographic and Time collection photo books and realize how much there is a lack of the super bokeh that everyone is so hyped about now days. As if an image does not have bokeh, than it is not that great or could be better. Don't get me wrong, many lenses ion the old days did not have as wide apertures as they do now, but looking at the images you still never feel that the images lack anything.
@@HuntaDaKilla I totally agree. Shallow Bokeh =/= good images.
Old video however I went down that road. Was a a7iii user. Now gh5. Mostly video and less pictures. The thing is amazing and my back appreciates less weight. The video depth is superior to my old song system.
Did you have any frustrations going from the Sony AF to the GH5 which I keep hearing is not nearly as good? Or do the other benefits of the GH5 outweigh that?
What I like is that it's cheaper and the community is large enough. I barely spent more than 1000 euro (excluding accessories) and I'm 4 primes in plus a body and kit, mostly used.
What are they?
Hey Tom ! I used to think just like you, in that I looked down on the whole MFT format as being totally inferior and generally deficient in overall image quality. Then I began to check out the image coming from the Z CAM E2C MFT Camera. Wow ! I was pleasantly surprised to learn of a camera that is just over $1,000.00 CAD, capable of shooting @ True 24.00p and Full 4K DCI 4096 x 2160 pixels with an image that is just killer ! The features versus overal cost ratio is also incredible ! With a proper Metabones Speed Booster/Adaptor on the Z CAM E2C any full frame and especially Super 35 lens can be used. There are now many manufacturors making lenses for MFT as well. I just don't see any disadvantages anymore, and people keep pronouncing the death of the format, but it's here to stay for awhile I think.
Amen Mark!! I was just thinking this today and was on the fence for which Z-Cam to get the e2 or the MFT. How is it for anamorphic support?
The biggest reason to shoot 4/3 is the cost. Other reasons are also related to cost!
Nice! That's fair.
This is true, until we consider the new olympus camera, which costs around 3000 euros.with that price range you can easily take a good FF through. But then again, not very good for video recording
4/3rds?? I Think You Meant ""Micro 4/3rds"" Correct?? Or Just 4/3rds? There's a huge Difference
Vegeta Referee That’s just the body and it’s still cheaper than a Nikon D5 or Canon 1Dx. A 300mm f:4 is about a quarter the cost of a 600mm full frame equivalent and a third of the weight.
@@chevypowertogo-9070 4/3 and m4/3 have the same size sensor.
I shoot stills since 6 years with mFT. It works. Most of my pictures been watched on a screen, some printed out. Nobody told my all that time, that my pictures are bad.
lmao that comment you typed.. SO ACCURATE of how ppl be in the comment section
You can casually say, "never look at MFT for photography with full frame out there," but the same prohibited costs exist there too. The stills variation of the GH5, the G9, is still a strong wildlife camera today for the price. Good lenses are available and as long as you're not pushing low light with movement the E-M1x/E-M1.3/E-M1.2 and G9 can be great cameras for stills. The $200-600mm 5.6-6.3 is $1,900; 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 and 70-200 f2.8 are both $2,400. You can pick up an MFT Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6 for $550. Sure you're going to have the crop factor on the depth of field but an effective 200-600 that's sharp for the price (with the option of teleconverters if you really need it) is hard to beat. There's also the PanaLeica 100-400mm f4-6.3 at ~$1600 new that's produces insanely good images when paired with the G9.
Rant aside, there are obvious downsides to MFT for stills but not everyone can afford the FF glass and a rugged weather sealed proven FF body to support them. I shoot Fuji/APS-C with an X-T2, and MFT with the E-M1 MK2 and G9. For most of my shooting I could just pick up my G9 with a couple fast primes and go and not feel like I'm hurting at all. It boils down to me not wanting to drop 2000+ on a S5 then more on a couple quality lenses.
i own the G7 with the kit lens and also the 25mm 1.7
simply the best camera and lens i have ever owned
Andrez Agree!! I love it more than my d3300
First of all, full frame is for photographers. The data for a full frame when using good specs is too large. TV and movies are shot on super35. ARRI is not full frame. Background blur is used to hide ugly sets, hide labels, hide details. If you use a sigma 16 you have cleaner edges. The lens is made for a larger sensor, but has 4/3 mount. So you only you the center of the lens. Full frame lens are expensive. Professionals do not shoot near their subjects. Concerts, news, movies. Only vloggers want that full frame because the are able to shoot super close. But they are vloggers so they don’t need good specs.
Welcome to the fam. Had your exact insight a few years ago. I’m as convinced as ever after grabbing the g9. Try it. Grab the 7 to 14mm and 12-35mm
M43 cameras are amazing. I have the Panasonic Lumix G85 and this camera is still rocking I shoot phenomenal videos with it.
This is such a great video. I’ve been on the fence about 4/3 vs FF, and your info is awesome. Thanks!
Rise Of Micro Four Thirds ! Love M43
Single best video I needed to watch for the last two weeks, I love how budget friendly MFT is. I was worried about everything you just addressed and I am now glad to be switching from my canon m50 to a panasonic!
Not appreciate information
You need better lens with Full frame. Others... You need at least dual pixel auto focus.
And you definitely need good understanding of Exposure Control the balance between Aperture, Sutter Speed and ISO.
I must say you are taking exactly in reality where you have started your video with crappy comments.
Well all you said then is actually for your video is 100% True.
My opinion you don't know back then as you said a year before and you don't Know even now. What you are talking about.
Just look the video you are making now. Cropping and crippling....
Man try to visit VVLT at least once in your life. Check what Image Sensor they are using there. ? Why and what they are getting out of it
For more information try to read about Classical Film, Old good Mid, large and extra large Film Making cameras.
My company here in Germany do make machines to digitize Tape to Pixels.
And I must say you really need to get around an educated person around for image processing. Not some biased Local Photographer... In your area.
Al least talk that make sense not some Display Image Quality on your specific need, work or actual display unit !!!!
My new content looks great a lot better than my old content because I learned more about how to use my camera properly and how to use lighting. Literally looks 10x better than my old content. You wouldn't be able to tell if it was shot on FF or cropped if I didn't tell you lol...
Almost 4 years ago I went for a Lumix GH4, and it was a good step up from an old iHDV tape cam. Generally use it with an add-on mike which is almost as heavy as the GH4 itself.
I normally use it to shoot in 4k @25 fps, and one of the awkward issues is accuracy of autofocus against relatively low contrast background. Often the best way round is to use focus lock, if there’s time to do that, but when using it’s ‘afc’ it can be be mitigated by using suitable depth of field. It can be annoying if it can’t focus accurately in 4k - a bit like shooting yourself in the foot, compared with using HD only, but it’s usually necessary to chop off a few frames at the start of each clip when editing the footage for this reason. Used to use an add-on neutral density filter so as to shoot at a chosen frame rate, but these days I don’t mind shooting at higher speeds for many things, having decided that in the 4k world it’s a myth that it’s wise to use twice the frame rate or whatever, resulting in most frames being sharp most of the time. Then there’s always the option of taking out a still shot that way.
The one I have has a 14 - 110 zoom lens, with optical image stabiliser. Possible to use it hand held right up to the top end (as long as you don’t mind tweaking it in editing).
A full-frame sensor can replicate the depth of field and image of quality of Micro Four Thirds by stopping down the aperture and increasing the Iso. The results will be identical.
You say you can't emulate the MfT look on larger sensor cameras. Ever thought about setting your lenses two stops slower? Because your point that you can do the same thing the other way, while true to some degree comes over as slightly disingenuous. You're upping the f stop using a speed booster, adding weight [ultra fast zoom lenses are always going to be heavy] and narrowing that depth of field you claim is such a burden. You can't have it both ways.
You're right about processing and features on the higher end Panasonics at their price point, but the native lenses are VERY expensive for what you get and becoming increasingly more so. In fact the cost and options of using adapted lenses and a speedbooster do throw that into sharp relief - I expect the forthcoming 10-25 f1.7 to be staggeringly expensive and in terms of light gathering DoF control, it will still only be equivalent to what you can achieve with a 20-50 optic at f3.3! On a 35mm sensor that is.
Before I get accused of being a [whatever brand/format] 'fanboy', bear in mind I'm shooting MfT [and have been for a few years]. I've actually got a Sigma 18-35 f1.8 on order after testing some of my Canon lenses with a speedbooster. In fact it was this revelation that convinced me to stick with the format because to some degree I can get the best of both worlds - a portable rig in less demanding situations and one which will suck in a lot of light for low light/ shallower DoF applications - so long as I'm prepared to accept the compromises.
If I could afford it I would have two [or more!] systems - each has its strengths and its weaknesses. It's always best to know - and to acknowledge what these are. Otherwise you're either kidding yourself at best - or trying to pull the wool over others' eyes.
I'm a fan of M43, I owned 2 x Olympus EM1 bodies, which I subsequently swapped for a single Olympus EM1 mark II. I actually favoured my EM1.2 over my APS-C Nikon D500. As a wildlife photographer (I don't touch video) I felt it was a far more versatile camera. If I only took one camera out, it was my EM1.2. A few months ago I literally swapped my Nikon and Olympus systems for a full frame system based around a Sony A7III and Sony A7II. The reason for the change was because I am nearly always shooting in reduced light, and a full frame sensor really does handle lower light better, in my opinion, than APS-C or M43. If I lived in an area with open fields and blue skies I would own 2 x EM1.2 bodies, as light would not be an issue.
Thanks for sharing! Yeah, low light can be a hassle. The GH5s is great for low light video, but only has 10MP, which really isn't gonna work for photography aha.
Great video Tom but I beg to differ, 10Mp is enough for vast majority of still requirements, there’s loads of great images lower than 10Mp and even magazine covers in the early digital days were shot with 2Mp cameras. We’re simply being sold mega pixels because of the bigger is better mentality, that’s the only way FF manufacturers can market their systems as supposedly better. 40+Mp cameras are beyond good enough, simple fact is 10Mp is enough. M43 tech is good enough for Pro applications, it’s an amazing feature packed system and can only get better
@@alexreay4164 Hey Alex. You're right, 10MP is technically enough, but for me I'd say it's not. In my experience I find that 18MP+ is what I like to work with. I like being able to crop in without worrying about how much I have to work with, and I find that things just look more crisp at 24MP or higher. I agree, If you're shooting for the web or Instagram or whatever, 10MP works fine, but if you're printing for billboards or even large canvases, I'd much rather have a higher MP count.
@@alexreay4164 Thanks for sharing!
I wanted to learn photography. So I got a used Sony A7s2. Then lens I got with it was damaged. I thought buying a zoom lens would help me practice diversely with different focal lengths. Bought the Tamron 24-70 f2.8. The thing is I don't keep my camera with me. I should have got a fixed focal length lens (which would have also been smaller) and a smaller camera so that I can keep this handy with me always. I need to practice more and more. The setup I have currently I just don't carry with me.
Keeping in mind I want to click pictures in low light during evening and night after office, please share some suggestions for a body and lens to have with me everyday.
I think the same about micro four thirds but till somebody offers a decent AF on a Micro four thirds I ain’t wasting my money again, the GH5 is my biggest regret from the cameras I own
That's fair. To each his own honestly. If you're shooting tons of vlogs and self produced content, then by all means buy a camera with great AF (I know I would!) But for me, I do sit down talking head videos, with B-Roll that I can control, weddings, commercial work, etc. I don't NEED AF (it would be nice, especially the other day when i shot my first video with the GH5 and it was out of focus ;) ) but it's not necessary for me.
DJLsb Vapes I shoot motorsports and I get a better hit rate with M43 than I ever did with a DSLR.
What do you mean? The E-M5 Mark II has awesome AF and Image stabilization within the camera itself and that's a micro four thirds from 2015.
@@WhatAboutTom shooting wedding videos in manual focus mode is like using an old Nikon F4 in an age where Sony A1 exists, just for shits. Is it possible? Yeah sure, but I think it's pretty damn stupid and you run the risk of ruining somebody's videos and day.
Why not just purchase a proper Canon or Sony mirrorless camera with excellent dual pixel autofocus and real time eye tracking AF? I don't care if you're freaking James Cameron, no amount of focus pulling skills will match the quality of modern AF systems.
The olympus has phase detection AF.
My feedback: I use an APS-C camera and love to test things. While I like the full frame ISO performance, I prefer to have more of my picture in focus at wide apertures vs having narrow depth of field making my pictures vulnerable to missing focus. Since overall exposure is the same for different sensor sizes at the same aperture for the same lens I prefer being able to operate wide open on the smaller sensor camera body. Micro 4/3rds has a place with that in mind, but the fact that the GH6 comes with IBIS and weather sealing while my M50 Mark II doesn't, and the fact that I'd need to spend so much to get a Canon mirrorless camera body that has those things, makes me respect the decision to use MFT instead of the larger sensor camera bodies.
Still watching the video, but another thing is when you look at the size of the old 16mm and Super 16mm film frames, M43 is 1.7 and 1.5 times bigger than those old formats. If this were 1960, 70 or 80 we'd all be shooting on 16mm or Super 16mm film because none of us could have afforded 35mm motion picture film stock.
I prefer M43 because it's a lot like the old 16mm format, but much better because we have 50 to 70 percent more sensor to play with than what they did. We can shallow out the depth of field more, but not have to fight the depth of field like our photographic brethren.
What I want are true M43 cinema cameras. Blackmagic leads on that front. I want a M43 version of the EVA-1, C100, FS5 and the URSA Mini Pro.
So far I'm working with a GH4 and plan on buying an Atomos recorder for it. The projects I do are far better on 16mm anyway, so why the need for 35 still picture film frame? I suspect it's because many photographers are now required to do video, and they have never used a smaller format than 35mm photographic film stock or APC-C. I find that true videographers and motion picture people are more adaptive to the format.
It's only photographers that worry about what a lens will look like on a different camera, when the only thing that matters is what it looks like on the camera they're using.
Black Warrior Lures Wow, great info! I didn't actually know that about 16mm film. Super interesting!
Have you looked at the spec for the new Blackmagic Pocket 4k? I'm tempted to get that. I was looking at the GH5s, but frankly for half the price, with recording straight to SSD for better workflow and free Resolve, I'm thinkcing of picking up the Blackmagic and then a normal GH5 or a G9 for vlogging, photography and run and gun. Two cameras for the price of one, essentially.
Yup! Yup! The P4k is most impressive. A true cimena camera for $1,000. I'd love to keep my GH4 maybe add a P4k at some point. That would be a great combo.
@@BlackWarriorLures I'm the same, looking at a hybrid camera like the G80 or Olympus E-M10 iii for day to day stuff and P4K for narrative. Tough call, Oly looks more stylish, has better stabilisation and colours, but no flippy screen!
Oh, didn't realize Olympus lacked the flippie outie.
go with Panasonic my friend. it is really the best!
I feel good about buying my G85 now
How's your G85 !? Is it still worth buying for semi-professional works !?
That’s one noisy keyboard!
Agree with all you say, I love my GH5 - have subscibed and look forward to the next one
But the ursa will get a lot better image but anyway I still shoot on Full Frame because I shoot photos so I still need photo capabilities and if I want less background blur I stop down the aperture and I'm alright and let's be honest L glass is the best glass (I was a Nikon and Sony fanboy by the way)
Split the difference and go APS-C!
I did that for years but you end up with a camera that's the same size and weight as a full frame dSLR with none of the advantages. Don't get me wrong. I liked my cameras but M43 is a better choice.
@@thethirdman225 There's the Sony A6X00 series cameras, only real disadvantage is they're pretty pricey (maybe except the A6000). There's more options with micro 4/3.
@@lordmashie I have to admit, much as the A6000 looked good on paper, I never really liked it from an operational point of view. A mate of mine ha one but it suits him better than me. It's a personal thing but the E-M1's superb (IMHO) ergonomics got it over the line against the others.
@@thethirdman225 I had a Sony a6000 and really liked it, but was tired of a lack of affordable lenses to go with it. To give you an example of what I mean, a Sony E-mount 10-18mm costs $1000 in Canadian dollars. By comparison, Canon's 11-22 costs $429CDN, and is just as sharp.
So I sold my Sony a6000 and got a Canon EOS M6 instead.
Steve Struthers I’m not familiar with the M6 but I did have the EF-S 10-22. I know what you mean about prices though. Sony seem to have decided to charge extortionate amounts of money for all except a few of their lenses. Unfortunately, a rising tide lifts all ships and that’s where it’s gone. Even manufacturers like Sigma are now very expensive.
Wtf?! After the entire video stating how great MFT cameras are, in the last few seconds you state "if you're a photographer, dont look at a MFT camera because of what full frame can do". Doosh bag.
I know, I'm such a fucking asshole
@@WhatAboutTom your not that bad just maybe 15% of a F.A. No need to beat yourself up over it.
I got rid of all my full frame gear years ago and moved to Micro 4/3 systems. And I never looked back. Great video, thanks for sharing.
Out of curiousity, why did you go from FF to M4/3? I was considering going the other way.
@@Lepewhi Size and weight. I’m getting older, but still like to travel, and I wanted more compact gear for the road.
@@RonaldBrown59 I see. I'm getting older too. So maybe I'll stay put. Plus FF lenses are a bit expensive.
Tom this advice is sagely and so accurate! As a GH5 and G9 shooter I have pondered the relevance of them lately compared to FF. I have a small investment in my lens both photo, video and cine and don’t want to sell just to move up to FF and spend more. It’s the shooter and the editing not the latest and greatest piece of gear
Love my G7, but lately I've been drooling over the G9. Fantastic photography camera with very good video features that you can pick up for even less than the GH5.
I hear really great things about the G9. 4k at 60fps for under $1500!
@@WhatAboutTom I have the G9 and it's great. In fact, I just switched from a Nikon d500 and do almost entirely stills with it. Couldn't be happier.
@@BrentODell Damn! Good to know! Even at micro four thirds huh?
@@WhatAboutTom The noise gets pretty bad above iso 3200, and I limit myself to 6400 when using auto iso. My only other complaint is trouble focusing on a smaller subject with strong backlighting, it hunts a bit. Other than that, it's great. The stabilization is insane; hand-held at 300mm(600mm equivalent) and 1/40th sec, and I don't have particularly steady hands.
@@BrentODell That's crazy aha. 600mm? Wtf lol. I expect bad low light with MFT tho, so that makes sense.
Hey. Absolutely on point. I shot both my feature films on GH bodies. They are on netflix. :)
Good info. The original pocket is a s16 sensor, BTW, not m43.
trevorpinnocky Ah this is true. They're fairly similar, but I believe the s16 has slightly more crop than MFT. Thanks for bringing that up.
The bmpcc totally fits in the mft world & ecosystem because of its mount. True it’s an s16 sensor, but it’s just added crop factor onto your focal length. I have both the gh5 & bmpcc, both great cameras and I think of them as mft. Great video by the way.
hahahahahaha MAN!!! Where's the comment?? Don't tell me you removed it on me? I look scary as fuck, I wouldn't watch my videos! Nice camera presence btw, you do you and DO WHATEVER you want
What comment? Aha I hope I'm not missing something, but I'm confused xD All I know is that I watched your HUGE Lumix GH5 Upgrades for under $50 video last night, so thanks for the comment aha
In this video at the start you're writing the parody comment, that's also my video? Now I'm confused 😂 I have changed the logo and thumbnail quiet recently! I like to emphasize words that mean BIG in my titles to contrast the small size of the M43 system. That.. and clickbait.. and to wind people up! But in terms of price to performance, those 3 accessories do increase the usability and output from the camera in a very nice way, on the cheap, for people starting off 😄 I'm looking forward to seeing more of your videos 😎 Papa bless
@@CreativeConnor OHHH! I didn't even realize ahaha! Yes that's your video, that's hilarious 😂😂 Yeah I deleted it immediately after I posted it LOL thanks for the feedback man ahaha that's hilarious
😂 haha, made my day anyway!😎
I'm glad. You silly idiot 😉
Your price comparison and lens availability are great arguments.
But (here comes the but...)
Having a deeper depth of filed in full frame is just lowering your aperture. You'll have to increase your ISO, but the format has sensors with a greater noise to signal ratio. With the same depth of field, you should be able to get equivalent images (with the same amount of noise) in the higher ISO need for the correct exposure. You don't need to crop for that.
Micro 4/3 sensors don't have a lower processing power. A processor works with data size, which is image size times bit depth (how many bits per pixel). On an equivalent data size (same resolution, same pixel depth), the processing power needed should be the same. If in the bigger sensor size body, components have the worst energetic efficiency, your claims of overheating should hold, but not for the reasons you're thinking of.
Full frame lenses are bigger because the most desired ones generally gather more light. A micro 4/3 lens that would make pictures with the same amount of noise as a full frame equivalent would be (if constructed the same way) as big as a full frame lens. You can't cheat physics, less noise = more photons (is what a speed booster do, actually, they gather more light for you to be able to get an equivalent noise performance and equivalent blurry background... just with an extra optical element - that should decrease light transmission and sharpness by a little bit).
Your content seems great and you seem to be wanting to help people, but perhaps you should also research more before making a video! o/
Cheers, buddy!
SunBro Why? How many people really care about that level of technical detail? I was a working professional for many years (photojournalist) and in the end, the only things I cared about were size, weight and cost. If I were still doing that work, I would undoubtedly go for M43. The presumed advantages of full frame are not enough to justify the disadvantages. In fact, the advantages most people quote are of minimal importance. For my kind of work it’s a no brainer.
In theory I believe FF can emulate M43...by cropping in post production or by setting the image area. But this is often not practical. FF matching M43 by zooming in which will introduce background compression and shallower depth of fields. For those of us who want a deep sharp picture, M43 is still a much more practical option and noise won't be an issue with most lighting conditions. Yes, the # of pixels matters more than the sensor size, but the reality is most FF cameras will have more pixels than a M43, and therefore will be more taxed (heat, electricity, computational power) for processing.
hey sunbro, sorry for taking 8 months to reply to you. You're right, you COULD just increase your ISO, but you're speaking as though all cameras are made equally. The Nikon D850, for example, is known to have horrible low light capabilities because of it's extremely high MP count. Without having to take low light ISO capabilities into consideration, going with MFT is much easier. The D850 might be usable at ISO 4000, but stopping down by 2x to match the DOF of MFT requires you to 2x your ISO as well. Now you're sitting at 8000. That's a big difference sometimes, and maybe the D850 can't handle that. Plus, maybe you're trying your best to shoot at a Native ISO so you get the best color, dynamic range, and noise performance, but you want to stop down in order to have a wider focus plane. Now you're creating a worse image just because you need LESS DOF. The thing I love about MFT is the flexibility. I own a number of MFT lenses, so technically when i'm shooting at f2.8, i'm getting the same DOF as if i were shooting at f5.6. But on the flip side, I own a Metabones speedbooster that can do a 0.64x crop, and make all the Full Frame glass I have replicate a true 2.8 (and even further if I want, technically. With a 0.64x speedbooster, you're technically get 1 1/3 stops extra, not just 1 stop extra. So my 24-70 2.8 from Tamron can go all the way down a true 1.8!) Sure, in theory you can stop down and make sure you have a wide focus plane, but that causes a lot more issues than just shooting MFT and having the flexibility to shoot whichever way you want and retain the same amount of detail.
BMPCC Original is not MFT it is S16 somewhere in between MFT and 1Inch.
11:02 a fly is landing on the shotgun microphone
😂😂😂
how would you mount a gh5 on a monopod when pairing it with a weighty 100mm f2.8 full frame lens
Get a tripod collar for the lens if it doesn't already have one. The weight needs to be distributed evenly.
Another video packed full of valuable and unique info! Dammit you're smart. I've been thinking a lot lately about the GH5S or A7iii so this was super helpful info! Thanks for sharing Tom 🙌.
Jake Frew Get the GH5s!!! I'm planning on selling my Sony gear and getting both the GH5 and 5s. Can't wait 😍😍
Yes but way too long .. be more straight to the point
G5 is good but heard Af is pretty bad not sure if thats for stills or video
adamstreetboyzz Continuous AF is pretty bad on the GH5 but single point and for stills it's great
I had the same question... Ended up going with the gh5s and I'm really happy with it
The main reason for FF is better noise control and low light handling. The problem (to date) has been the compromises that one would have to make in an FF camera. This usually meant compressed codecs, record limits and lack of high-speed frame rates (like 4k 60). We have crossed that bridge now with cameras like the S1. It's not perfect yet but it's certainly getting interesting now.
DoF or depth of field, is an optical effect. It has nothing with sensor or film size. To create it, you need just a lens. DoF look depends on the (1) focal length of the lens (which determines the field of view and the magnification of the scene relative to bare human eyesight magnification; (2) distance of the lens from the subject, (3) aperture of the lens.
Everyone knows that, but effectively is cheaper to use a 50mm f1.8 on a full frame than a ~25mm f0.9 on a MFT.
Do they even make f0.9 lens?
f1.8 lens for 135 format and f1.8 lens for M4/3 format gather same amount of light per unit area, and nothing about the exposure triangle changes because exposure meters tells the same reading, regardless of format. Lenses with 'wider' aperture / larger front elements are made primarily for gathering more light in challenging environments. DoF effect they create at such wide apertures is of secondary concern. Stanley Kubrick used very 'fast' lenses not because he was interested in DoF, but because he was interested to film at candlelight. He knew thin DoF was totally useless, so he moved cameras farther away.
So if you had any working knowledge about photography, you would know why is something made, and for what exact purpose. In the history of photography, especially portraits, never was DoF was such concern, nor was compressed 'creamy background' celebrated at all, as it was in recent years, when a horde of amateurs crowded the digital photography grounds with poor taste and ignorant excuses.
DOF is not directly influenced by sensor size, but the influence is there. When to get the same POV, with the same lens, you need to be farther away from you subject when using a smaller sensor, you are forced to change one variable (distance to subject) that influences DOF, so there you go, the statement "It has nothing with sensor or film size", it's not completely right.
Lens does not know what you want to do with all its characteristics. Same as light, and shadows, and shapes, they do not know what you want to do with them. When you force projection of one lens into some frame of your wild imagination, then you must deal with issues. Optics and photography are in reality very unintimidating, benign and very open for experimentation; it is the utter amateurs who in lack of visual and history knowledge invent most bizarre rules, that cripple the field down to absurdities.
f/0.95 is close enough...
You CAN boost depth by increasing f stop. I am not sure which format performs better for noise though if you match DOF. Probably FF still.
Bear in mind that crop factor applies to the f-stop number as well. The depth of field of an m43 sensor with a 25mm f1.4 lens is identical to a full frame sensor, 50mm, at f2.8. In fact, the aperture is identical in both cases: 25mm/1.4 = ~18mm, 50mm/2.8 = ~18mm. You're getting the same amount of light into the camera. So, if you can live with f2.8 on m43, you'd see roughly the same low-light performance at f5.6 with a full frame sensor, assuming identical pixel pitch, which is the real catch.
The GH5s has larger pixels than the GH5, and each ones gathers more light, reducing noise.
The beauty of a full frame sensor is that the optics become way simpler for wide-angle lenses, and you can still achieve a higher pixel count with larger pixels. But this matters a lot more for stills photography than video.
Also, sensor readout speed is related to the number of pixels, not the size of the sensor. A 20MP m43 sensor takes the same amount of time to read as a 20MP full frame sensor, assuming equivalent technology. Another reason the GH5s rocks - at 10MP, it reads so fast you have almost no rolling shutter. However, you could achieve the same effect cropping a full sensor in half and reducing your focal length to match.
Having said all that ... I currently only have a g85. :) I'd have bought the GH5s for stills photography if it had IBIS! I bet it would be breathtakingly good for astrophotography..
Gordon Lamb Good info! Thanks for sharing
Equivalence is flawed as for getting the same exposure on that hypothetical FF you would need to use quadruple ISO value. And then get the same picture. What's the point ? We can compute hypothetical equivalence with medium format, too. Which is equally pointless...
Oh and for wide angle lenses, short flange distance means simpler lenses. M4/3 offers quite interesting and cheap (in comparison) lenses, like the Panasonic 7-14mm or that Laowa 7.5mm f/2. The Olympus 7-14mm is a really nice lens too (bit more expensive, but constant f/2.8 is nice).
I actually have the Panasonic 7-14mm lens and it's freakin' brilliant. I do wish it was faster, though.
Depth of field is a function of the focal length. A 50mm f/1.8 lens on a FF and on a Micro 4:3 would get the same depth of field. It's the field of view that is different due to the sensor size. Using a 25mm lens on the Micro 4:3 would give an equivalent field of view, but depth of field changes due to the focal length change.
Right .. well, focal length and aperture size. Sensor size totally irrelevant.
I mean, ok, if you want to use mft, go for it, it sure has benefits, but I've got a few problems with this video. First off:
You're having issues focusing in low light with an A7RIII with a wide open aperture? This is just hard to believe. It's either a problem with your camera, or user error, I don't know, but I've shot a few weddings last year with an A7II. Not R, nothing fancy, just the good old mark II, and no issues at all.
If you want a deeper depth of field, why not just close the aperture more, and crank the ISO a bit higher? The RIII can really handle anything up to 10k in my opinion. Or if it's really low light, just use a flash. I know, I hate it too, but sometimes it's a must.
Yes, you can adapt anything to mft, but you still have to look at the crop factor. A 50mm f1.8 will be a 100mm f~3.5, and you can use a focal reducer, but all these adapters will slow the af down a bit, which might result in moments lost.
The size and weight... Well, I can't argue with that, full frame gear can get pretty huge.
Just to make things clear, I'm not bashing on you, we just don't share the same opinion.
Damn. How are you only on 535 subscribers?!
Alf Williamsen I could ask the opposite. How the hell did I reach 535 subscribers??? Super pumped!
When you do the right thing not many will recognise you!
Watch the video and you'll see why....
uhh, shown Viltrox EF-M2 has reducing factor x.71, which means that your output cropfactor equals 1.42, which is closer to S35
Good video. Subbed.
Hey thanks!
Today, the line between still images and movies has almost vanished, and the ability to offer superior movie characteristics (affinity) is becoming a critical factor.
As the problems of heat generation and battery consumption due to long-lasting exposure increase in proportion to the sensor size, it is now important to improve image quality by using a sensor as small as possible.
Many of the movie cameras designed for cinema and broadcasting were unable to solve these problems, so cameras using small 2/3" sensors have been used extensively.
Nevertheless, since the debut of Micro Four Thirds, which boasts a sensor that features compact size and low power consumption, while matching the image circle of PL-mount movie lenses, a great change was produced in the cinema and broadcasting industry. Now, as new Micro Four Thirds-compliant equipment is released in rapid succession, the Micro Four Thirds System is beginning to establish itself as the new standard of the movie and broadcasting industry in the digital era.
The movie and broadcasting industry has recognized Micro Four Thirds as the only standard capable of offering high image quality while solving the heat generation and battery consumption problems.
I am just tired of hauling around heavy gear when the image quality taken with my Olympus OM 5 is top notch . I see many people are still buying the huge Canons and Nikons and it is so old fashioned. They just believe bigger and heavier body will always reward them with a superior image and they are so wrong. And yes , most of the DSLR owners do not realize how important is to invest in proper lens.
A ton of lazy new photographers who depend on auto focus, and hi iso. They want to make all the money without doing any of the work. As long as a camera gives me the ability to manual focus I never really cry the autofocus should be faster and better and the frames per second should be more so I can spray and pray. Photography and art it's always about concentrated seeing. You get done with the right tool. Sometimes I use acrylic sometimes I use oil. Sometimes I use micro four-thirds sometimes I use a Pentax Q🙂 and I love picking up all those old 8: mm 16 mm inches for dirt cheap. For now. .
Agreed. The current mad scramble to full frame is driven by manufacturers not consumers. They're scared of phones and want to get as far from that as possible. Before long the herd will realise they're up for $10,000 and 10kg to shoot what they could have shot on crop sensor for $3000 and 3kg (but with marginally better image quality under very specific unlikely circumstances). Btw you can emulate M43 on FF. It's called a 2x teleconverter. I do think though that Canon APS-C at 1.6 crop is the ideal sensor size, and Canon EF-M has by far the best range of lenses that function as if native. When Canon produce an EF-M body as good as the Olympus OM-E-WTF that will be just about the perfect camera.
Give people like me the credit for having the knowledge to buy what they absolutely know FITS THEIR USAGE. Your toy of a camera can't match my D850 + 500mm F5.6 PF. Now don't give me the argument of "300mm f4 on m43 is equal to 600mm" because it doesn't lol. also that lens is HEAVIER and MORE EXPENSIVE than Nikon's 300mm f4, lmao. anyway, m4/3 is for people that want small bodies, big lenses, and to feel better about themselves for being special for not buying what makes more sense to actually buy lol.
Are you 12 years old? Your FX is also a "toy of a camera" if you talk to a medium-format fashion photographer. There are always bigger fish in the sea, remember that.
@@kay5356 bigger? bigger? lol.. medium format is useless for most uses. completely uselss. people buy medium format for portraits and fashion, or because they are rich and want to brag. idiot. you completely ignored everything I said and commented only about 1 really superficial thing, you're clearly a fucking idiot.
It's the small things that tell a lot about a person. And your childish name-calling pretty much confirms your level of qualification.
Regarding your statement that "medium-format is useless for most uses" (?), they can be used to great effect for portraits, fashion, product, landscape photography, which make up a huge number of uses.
You seem to have taken my comment at surface level too -- belittling others for their gear is a lost battle from the start. Try to be a better person.
you must know me in real life. you're probably one of those fatty McChubbies @@kay5356
New sub here! Great explanation! Iam a g7 (sold it), g85(handed it down to my younger sister), gh5 and g9(currently) and i can tell all the doubtsters out there that m43 system is awesome! Untill recently theres only one camera that could offers so much video features in a smal body like gh5, under 2g which is the xt3. But the lack of ibis of the xt3 makes the gh5 still untill today the best bang for your bucks filming camera period! Using a manual speedbooster and some fast nikon lenses like the 50mm f1.4 youd be surprised with the result! Before MFT I used canon 70d, then nikon d5600, then sony a6300.
The speed booster will make at apsc not full frame
A 0.64x speed booster on the GH5s is literally a 1.1x crop, which is closer to full frame than APS-C
Tom Ryan The new Speed Booster XL 0.64x reduces the full-frame crop factor of the Panasonic GH4 from 2.0x to 1.28x, thus effectively transforming these cameras into APS-H format. When the GH4 is used in Cinema 4k video mode the horizontal full frame crop factor is reduced from 2.34x to 1.50x, thus effectively transforming the GH4 into a super-35 format 4k cine camera. (From there website)
@@nickgrace4699 Yes, and if u noticed, I never mentioned the GH4 at all in any part of the video or my comment. All cameras have different styles of cropping. Some shoot more cropped than others regardless of their sensor size. Notice how it says "the GH4 will shoot at 2.34x crop in C4K." The GH5 and GH5s don't do that, they use the full sensor. The GH5s has a bigger sensor than the GH5, and will crop at around 1.8x. this means if u add a speed booster of 0.64x, the crop factor will be 1.1x. please read my comments in full in order to fully understand.
Tom Ryan The GH5 has a 2x crop in 4K video mode, so there has been a lot of speculation about whether the Speedbooster XL can be used to give the image the appearance of an approx. 1.3x crop factor camera (similar to the Canon EOS 1D C). (Also not trying to bash on you, I Do like the video)
@@nickgrace4699 Ahaha dude u gotta read what I say. The GH5S NOT the GH5. I've said it a few times now, you gotta read. The GH5s has a 1.8x crop. GH5S. S. Not the regular GH5. If you shoot in C4K at 4096x2160, it's a 1.8x crop, which, when speed boosted by 0.64x, becomes a 1.1x crop.
While comparing a GH5 to a Canon 5D MKII is kinda dumb considering the 5D MKII is 9 years older than the GH5, the low light on the GH5 is infinitely better. I’m using a 0.71x speed booster, and at 400 iso my Helios 58mm becomes f/1.4, but even at iso 400 at f/2, it is far brighter than the 5D MKII at iso 640 at f/2. So, low light performance on the GH5 is better than at least some older full frame DSLRs.
Thanks for the insult at the end. I am a photographer and I would not even look at FF cameras. FF digital is nothing like the FF film: cameras are bigger, and lenses are - huge. M4/3 offers enough quality, power and so much less weight and is the new golden standard for all imaging works, thanks.
But for landscape photographers who print large images and need the higher dynamic range, FF is where it's at, or medium format of you're that way inclined.
At the end of the day it's what gets the job done for you.
RE: "enough quality" - The viewer of the image isn't going to say "That photo is good enough quality for the sensor size, smaller body size and weight."
@@mikal thats complete bullshit and that myth has been busted.... look up The School of Photography video where he puts a FF canon against an Olympus, does shots with each and prints them at 3ft.... even the professional lab printer couldnt tell which shots came from which camera....
Also, the client is only interested in the end result, not how you got there... no matter what gear you use it will not save your pathetic photography skills.... only noobs argue about which camera is "better"
Using your exact logic, the 1" sensor in my RX100 must be twice as good as any 4:3.
oh really? i wonder how can the 300mm f4 olympus MICRO FOUR THIRDS LENS IS HEAVIER THAN THE NIKKOR 300MM PF.. I JUST WONDER.. the lenses are the same size, bodies are smaller. a 24mm f1.4 is a 24mm f1.4. you cant argue about that fact.
Just traded my full frame Nikon D750 for a Fujifilm APS-C system, but it was only after months of agonizing over M43 vs APS-C and it was NOT because of the sensor that I chose Fuji. It was because they seem to be more devoted to their system than the former Olympus or even Panasonic. Tons of great lenses in M43, but I didn't want to build a kit and find in a few years it isn't being supported any longer. I don't think those companies will dump M43, but with the sale of Olympus and so much uncertainty in the photography industry, I went with Fuji. I loved my GX85, but wanted two bodies, both with bigger grips than that camera. You're right....any sensor can do great things and M43 cameras today are doing what the Nikon D700 was doing 10 years ago for performance. It's almost ridiculous that "pros" want to continue to shun M43 and APS-C because their belief in sensor size is so ingrained in their arguments. You can get outstanding results on any of the systems and if the Olympus used bodies were a bit cheaper, I'd probably have gone M43 instead. I think it is an awesome system and my only issue is hoping it has future longevity like its past.
Thinking that a smaller sensor can give you a deeper depth of field with the same light gathering is incorrect. If you just shoot a full frame at 2x the aperture and 4x the ISO, you will have identical depth of field and noise as M4/3. 25mm f/2.8 ISO 200 on M4/3 will look identical to 50mm f/5.6 ISO 800. The disadvantage of M4/3 being that you don't have the option to go wider and let more light in, you can't escape physics, there's no such thing as a tiny lens that lets tons of light in.
You mention in the video that you can get 'tiny' f/1.7 lenses, insinuating that it's letting lots of light in, it isn't. it's letting in exactly the same total light as a FF lens at f/3.4, so not very wide.
The advantages of M4/3 are size, and processing, it's less CPU intensive to film on a smaller sensor so you can get 4K60 etc much easier than FF. But the whole DoF thing is a fallacy.
Christopher O'Grady I mean, this isn't true, but I already explained why so I'm not sure how else to say it aha
Lens aperture is a pure optical property, that is not linked to any sensor size. You can project the image on a photographic paper for that matter. As a counterpoint, i can use a FF lens adapted on a Panasonic camera. If it's a f/2 lens it doesnt become f/4 all of sudden and exposure still works the same. People mix up signal-to-noise ratio with exposure (there are different..). SNR is also affected by the technology of the sensor, modern sensors are better than older ones. The point can be made that even tiny phone sensors are becoming quite impressive (their lenses not so much though).
Guillaume M Thank you, I didn't feel like explaining it for 9th time lmao
If the question is only about light, the FF has a two-stop advantage over the m43. That's it, when dealing with the whole sensor in generic terms (before looking at, say, pixel size or sensor technology). Anything else is going to depend on the lens used.
This "two stop advantage" is in SNR only, and at similar technological levels (and there are some variations around it). M4/3 today is as good as previous FF generations..
The gaining of wisdom comes with experience and you have reached a new level of enlightenment, but... you still suffer from the ‘either/or’ syndrome. The next level of enlightenment is that the choices are not binary. Don’t just switch to MFT - add MFT to your existing capabilities. I have been shooting photography and more recently video since 1962. Experience has taught me that the optimal format for a job varies. Talking video- I have cameras from full frame down to 1/2.3 All of your reasoning here is correct and I love my MFT DVX200. A great format. But there are times when the A7s ii is best for the job, however, most of my recording gets done on the smallest sensors because depth of field, frame rates etc are best on the smaller sensors. I also find that camcorders are generally the better workhorses and DSLR are more for specific creative purposes. The current fashion to disregard the camcorder is very shortsighted. The bottom line is, that while it is expensive, life is long and allow the camera collection to grow into various formats and form factors. Cameras do not need to be replaced every couple of years. If a camera is good now, it is still going to be just as good in 10 years, but your creativity will be enhanced by having the choice of various types of cameras to suit the needs of the day. Definitely get the GH-5 - a brilliant camera - but keep that Sony. One day, when needing to shoot by the light of a single candle, you will be very glad you kept it.
So a 1 2/3 sensor gives also good quality or do I need a 1 inch instead?
I dropped M43 quickly after some testing. I am deeply into Wildlife, especially birds. And M43 is simply not capable enough here for me. The Autofocus performance sucks compared to something like a Canon 1DX Mark II or Nikon D5. And worse, the low light performance and high ISO performance is simply a disaster. And birding you do especially early in the morning or early in the evening. So no way for M43.
Stefan1968ful I totally hear you, that's why I said it might be best to stick with full frame for photography. But for video, I can't see any reason why an MFT camera isn't just as capable as a full frame camera.
Ah, don't get me wrong. I was interested into an Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II. Together with an Olympus 300mm f/4. As a tool for Wildlife on travels (the crop factor of 2.0 is cool). But...as I said, the Autofocus could not match my expectations, especially on Continuous Tracking. I don't care much about sensor size as I am also using with the Nikon D500 an APS-C sensor for Wildlife. But true is that in low light situation a Fullframe sensor has an advantage, I also cannot ignore this. At daylight it does not matter that much in my opinion.
Stefan1968ful fair points!
Just hope that Panasonic & Co don't give up M43, it is better than many people think. Especially due to the crop factor of 2.0 you can build up relatively small lenses, way smaller than for Fullframe. And that is in my opinion the real advantage of M43.
Doesn't the crop factor really help with focal length though? I can't imagine, handholding a full frame 600mm lens vs a 300mm M43 plus IBIS.
I own both the D850 full frame camera and the Pasonic Lumix mirrorless G9 micro 4/3rds. I use the D850 for pictures and the the G9 for video. You explained quite well the difference between the both.
There are some real advantages m4/3 but the idea it can replicate a FF is nonsense. And the top of the range Panasonics are bigger than my a7iii, almost as expensive and have worse af.
Jason E If I said replicate full frame then I apologize. What I meant is that you can replicate Full Frame depth of field by using a speedbooster, and it also gives you an extra 1.5 stops of light, so it will also help you achieve a similar low light performance.
The a7iii is a great camera but the GH5 beats it in several areas. The GH5 has a larger and higher resolution LCD, way higher resolution and better quality EVF, shoots 12FPS to the a7iii's 10FPS, higher resolution video, does 4K 60p, has a flash sync port, it does 4k and 6k photo mode and its less expensive. Lenses are also much cheaper than E mount lenses. I'll take the GH5 all day.
@@WhatAboutTom Shallow depth of field is usually a bad thing in video, and it's a way overused artistic mechanism ever since the DSLR filmmaking revolution hit. Backgrounds are super important and so many people just don't respect that.
@@JodyBruchon It all depends, but yes, it can be a bad thing no doubt.
@@michaelbell75 I have a GH5 and an A7iii and the sony beats the GH5 in almost every area. Way better dynamic range, better low light performance, way way better autofocus, the footage is just as crisp etc. The GH5 does have better IBIS, and a better screen, and 10 bit but none of these things outweigh the dynamic range and low light performance when these things are needed. 10 bit is overrated for many people - they can't see or benefit from the difference. cameras are just tools man, use whatever gets the job done for you.
I dropped my micro 4/3 setup, not for the sensor or anything to do with that, but because my camera (Panasonic G85) had trash autofocus. I went with Sony APS-C (ZV-E10) and full frame (A7C) for the autofocus. For photography, I actually quite love the idea of micro 4/3.
There are great autofocus in micro four thirds, it's called Olympus
Shallow depth of field isn’t based on the sensor it’s the F stop fool smh
Hey brother, love the name (I get it, but it's not 2008 😄) So, while you're correct in that the F-stop will determine the depth of field you get, it's also determine by what sensor you use. Think of it this way: when you shoot at 35mm at F4 on a Full Frame camera, but then you crop in 100% in post, you aren't then seeing 70mm at F4, you're basically seeing 70mm at F8. The depth of field isn't changing, just the field of view (which is now equivalent to 70mm with a 2x crop.) So, Micro Four Thirds sensors have a 2x crop (in comparison to 35mm cameras, which is the standard when talking about crop factors.) So any lens you put on it, you have to multiply the focal length by 2, and therefore also multiplying the F-stop by 2 (in relation to depth of field, not light being let in to hit the sensor.) So if you shoot at 50mm on a full frame camera at F1.4, and shoot on a micro four thirds camera at 25mm (equivalent to 50mm) at F1.4, the field of view will be the exact same, but the Full Frame camera's background will be significantly more blurry than the Micro Four Thirds camera. Hope this explains it!
Tom Ryan you have to understand anyone that takes in consideration into getting a cropped sensor will have enough sense to get a lens to make up for the crop. You have to know in order to get says 28mm equivalent Lens on a cropped sensor you know you’ll have to get a 14 or 15mm Lens to get in the same ball park. I understand what your saying, but when I use say my AF100 I’m not gonna be using the same Lens I have on my Sony FS700 or even my D850. Going into that you make up for those allowances, but your talking about apples and oranges, to prove a point that as a statement isn’t true, sensor size doesn’t dictate the depth of field, I can get the same exact picture on each sensor sharpness will change depending on the lens. I love the micro thirds look tho.
Yes, I know this, that's why I said you would use a 25mm lens (usually uncommon for Full Frame) to get the equivalent of a 50mm. However, like I said, this isn't a true 50mm. It's literally a 25mm lens optically, but it's made for a camera that will have a 2x crop, and therefore made for a specific purpose (this is why lenses like a 17.5mm exist.) So you're still cropping, and still have to take into account the loss of depth of field from crop factor. Any time you crop a lens's true focal length, you're also cropping its aperture in relation to the depth of field. So, although you can purposely buy a 25mm lens in order to get the field of view of a 50mm, your f-stop is not going to be the same as if you were shooting on a native 50mm. If you shoot at 25mm at f1.4, you're essentially shooting at the equivalent of 50mm at 2.8, not 50mm at 1.4. Field of view absolutely has an impact on depth of field, because you have to take into account the amount of the image circle you're actually showing, and the distance from the camera that your subject is.
Tom Ryan sounds like your complete on thinking your opinion is an actually fact when it isn’t. Your argument is that if I have a lens that compromises the focal distance your saying I can’t get an f stop to match the original full frame lens which is false. Listen justify anything u need for your purchase, the fact is your wrong about what you said. This isn’t personal this is the comment section, I know people in general don’t like being wrong, but it’s the only way to learn and grow. The fact that your explaining trying to justify your point to a stranger on your TH-cam channel is funny. Every camera has its use, sometime crops work in your favor, it does for your wedding shoots like you said, but the sensor doesn’t dictate a shallow depth of field, again the f stop does.
Tom Ryan and please don’t take offense from me calling you fool I don’t literally mean your a fool, it’s like when your tell ur friends “man ur crazy bro” I didn’t mean to offend if I did.
One word - IBIS i don`t want to take gimbal with me every day and i don`t want spend hours and hours make post processing of my shacky jello videos (Smaller sensor - less rolling shutter better Ibis). Neither Sony Canon Nikon have Olympus or Panasonic IBIS level. Low light photography? shallow DOF? take 1.2 prime and done! I have nice photo camera, superb 4K camcorder and gimbal in my small bag or pocket.
Just wanted to say one thing. I don't like full frame because of the shallow depth of field. I like it because you get close to your actors with normal focal lenghts. On M43 you are getting into the tele range and if you want to get close you need something like 14mm. And 14mm without distortions is hard to find. Well maybe it is possible. But i have the feeling, that Full Frame does the job better in that aspect.
Same stuff with anamorphic. I don't like anamorphic because of the flares or the bokeh, but because i can get closer to the action because of that squeezing.
(sorry for bad english)
Who cares???People take your money and buy what works for yOU.NO OPINIONS matter for other people,because it's our money.You cannot tell me to get a Lexus if i want a Corolla,no matter what you say,so debating about full frame vs 4/3 is what is called STUPID and a waste of time.I dont want to mimic something,change something,and blah blah blah,because i can get a 4/3 ,APS-C,full frame,and medium format,all at the same time,and from all different brands.I have used different formats and the average person does not know nor c are..period..no debates will change that...Look at the facts about what the MAJORITY of shooters use and buy,like the Canon M50,which for a year,was the TOP selling mirrorless camera.Plus,I am not some wipy,complaining little baby,that needs to waste my time debating about tools instead of actually being outside shooting,not crying about the weight/size.....
So, with M4/3 cameras now on your mind, which ones should I consider for under $1K. Is the G85 good? I’m kind of in the same boat. Great video explaining your rationale for switching.
Yes. The G85 would probably be the best MFT camera for the price
Thanks so much. I’m going to look into it. It’s of particular interest because of its weather resistance too.
I had to pause your video after 4:30, because I believe there is a clarification to be made.
I am a wedding photographer and I have shot a few years with a full frame and a few more with m43. I have also shot shoulder to shoulder with my colleagues on weddings - me with my m43 and them with their FFs.
I believe that you have chosen to rush into making an educational video before you have gotten enough experience to understand the nature of the two types of systems.
Example: two photographers are shooting a group photo at the wedding reception in poor light. One shoots with FF, the other with m43. One uses 24-70mm f2.8 and the other 12-35mm f2.8 - both shooting at the same equivalent field of view and same focusing distance.
Both want to have enough DOF to encompass the people standing a bit forward and those in the back. The FF guy realizes that for him it's optimal to shoot at f5.6, ISO 6400, 1/200" shutter. The m43 guy needs f2.8, ISO 1600, 1/200". In this case both have the exact same DOF, similar noise (depending on cameras) and the same lack of camera shake blur and subject movement blur.
In this case the only difference the two photographers experience is the weight of their cameras. I have experienced this multiple times both as the photographer and later as the pixel-peeping editor.
For this reason I believe that before a person decides to teach others a particular skill, they should first dedicate the time to gather the necessary experience. Otherwise the content becomes misleading to those who are influenced.
Olympus has an advantige over the Panasonic on autofokus and the "wobbling" because of their phase detect autofokus. But the gh 6 Will have phase detect autofocus too. I'm not a videographer, but I Love micro 4/3ds because the most important for me is The price, weight and ergonomics. The Olympus omd em1 mark ii is The perfect match for me. Low weight, that made photography enjoyable again, since it don't affects my arthritis. Ergonomics is just a fit for My small hands and the price, that make me have afford more lenses.
Hey Tom, maybe you can help me out here. I own a Sony a6000 APS-C camera with two lenses and think about buying me a BMPCC4K. I asked the guys from Blackmagic if I could use my lenses on their camera and they said NO! So now I’m a little confused because you said, that they can be used! Did I get something wrong here. I would appreciate your help! Thanks a lot :)
I lost you around 3 mins. FF can't get the same effect as m43? Just step down the aperture bro. Just a few clicks, and done. Raise the iso a touch, done.
Also, adding speedboosters and adapters immediately takes away any photo capabilities in the camera. And that's the biggest deal breaker for any hybrid shooter.
In well lit situations, there's really no real advantage between m43 or ff. I shoot interviews occasionally and I still stop down to f4, sometimes even f/5.6. That's just the same as f/2.8 on m43.
However, in situations where you can't control lighting, run and gun situations, that's where m43 falls apart real fast imo, especially for certain genres like indoor sports.
I sold my full frame bricks! Full frame is way over priced, super heavy, and just a way camera manufacturers pull more money out of your pocket with nonsense “camera snob” marketing. Micro 4/3 prints are every bit as good in my experience , sometimes better as my full frame Nikons and Canon’s were up to 24”x36” prints and even larger. And my new Olympus lenses are superb!
If you're a photographer, don't ever look at micro 4/3? As someone who's been using micro 4/3 for still photography for over a decade, I refer you to the beginning of your own video. You sir, are wrong. Micro 4/3 is fantastic for still photography.
I am a portrait landscape photographer in that I take portraits out in the wild and micro 4/3 has a couple other advantages. The first is lens size. Next is the absolute insane weathersealing and toughness, and last is the ability to actually traverse into the wild with your camera. I keep a canon r8 Stuffed in my bag just for a low light close-ups outside of that, nobody can tell the difference between an Olympus picture and a canon picture even my friends that are professional Cannon photographers.
Shit, you look exactly like Ryan Gosling. Thanks for this video.
The main problem and main most significant issue is people think mega pixels are a direct reflection of quality, if people would invest little thought and effort to understand what are they buying - high MP useless sensors won't ignite the poor made sensors marketing system manufacturers rely on. It is not quality/efficiency to point manufacturing/design as much as sales/income and sadly people are tempted to purchase and pay their $£$ over numbers rather than true RAW quality.
It depends what you film. For movement, sport 4:3 is beter for tge rest ff.
Background blur. Most movies ahas blur and if you don t wants blur just open diafragma
I switched about four years ago and have zero regrets. $3200 D800E to EM-1 Mark 2. Yep, I still crop and love it.
The GH5 is an incredible camera and a steal on the holiday deal for $1497 right now. The GX9 and the GX85 are also great cameras that can be had cheap right now too.
Um... You may have a few points about using MFT for video but, forgive me, your "if you're a photographer don't ever look at a micro four thirds camera because of what full frame cameras are capable of" is complete and utter drivel. Whilst FF may have a little better res and DR, the differences in performance are nothing like as great as some may claim and in real terms MFT has even more advantages for photography than for video. Why else would many very serious professional photographers prefer to use MFT over other formats if this were not the case? So it is very wrong and misleading to make the statement you made.
Awesome vid! I have been shooting on the g7 for over 2 years. It's a great camera. Auto focus is meh, but I shoot mostly manual focus any way. It has it's issues, but It has been a great camera to learn with. I would totally recommend it to a beginner.
Here's a short promo I shot with it: th-cam.com/video/iMRRz2Mm2Zw/w-d-xo.html
No no no no, how about we just let folk buy what they want and if they get it wrong they can only blame themselves.
Pienso que es una tontería comparar ambos sensores, yo tengo la OLYMPUS OMD M1 MarkII y es mejor cámara que la Canon 5D, más rápida en enfoque y en disparos. Lo de los sensores es una idiotez. Ambos sistemas reciben la mayor parte de La Luz en el centro y tan solo variaría si vas a imprimir grandes carteles ya que en pantalla el ojo no distingue cuando se está hablando de millones de píxeles. Si quieres conseguir el mismo bokeh en un mft que en un ff solo tienes que aumentar la apertura del diafragma, es decir, que sí con ff dispara a f2’8 tendrás lo mismo con un mft si disparas a f1’4, y lo mismo pasa con el rango focal si con un ff disparas a 50mm con mft tendrás que disparar con un 25mm. Discutir sobre esto des una discusión de idiotas, aplicad las matemáticas. Saludos.
speed booster 250 - 650 dollars added to the cost of your camera if you want full frame dop and added 1-2 stops of light. Not worth it. Just get the full frame and not worry about speed boosters. Just saying or am I incorrect.
Just compare my G9 and my 25 F/1.4 with the S1 and the 50 F/1.4 Sigma art, and you'll understand why I sold my FF for a M4/3.
But you do realize you can very easily stop down full frame to get 'deeper depth of field' right? Also if you really want the 'crop' just go with a higher focal lenght on full frame or get an apsc lens????
1" sensor is a smaller but personally have not gone below my E-M5 or Canon RP. Don't shoot video though.
FYI, there’s no such thing as a “micro four thirds sensor”. The sensor size is “four thirds”. The lens mount is “micro four thirds”.
The image circle size doesn't change the size of the lens. APS-C lenses are generally smaller and lighter than full frame lenses, but that's just because they're marketed to the beginner market. Mirrorless lenses are lighter and smaller, but that has to do with the distance to the sensor, not the size of the image circle.
Regarding your first point.... if you want a wider depth of field just close the aperture.. duh...
Sensor size will not effect depth of field. It is the crop factor of a sensor that effects both f-stop and focal length, which will effect the depth of field.. a micro four third has a crop factor of 2. Which will double the f-stop and focal lens of a full frame lens..
The main advantage should be that 4/3 are much smaller and lighter. In practice they are nowhere near that much smaller and lighter.