I switched from APS-C last year to M43. I wanted something more compact and lighter for street and documentary photography. I have a Lumix GX85 and two Panasonic Leica prime lenses. Very happy with the quality of the lenses and small size of the camera. Something like the Sony A7C and two compact Sony lenses would work for me but it was 2.5 times the price. DXO Pure Raw is fantastic for removing noise. I am very happy with this system.
@@hanumanguy sounds great! Indeed, the Sony A7C is something I looked at but the price would have been much higher. I'll have to try out Dxo pure raw at some point.
@@MyIntrovertedNature I meant DXO Pure Raw is great for removing noise, you can probably go a couple of stops higher with confidence even 3200 or 6400. And yes Sony is expensive and if you need a zoom you are back to big camera again!
And an other video "FF vs smaller sensor" 🙄 Maybe we could all remember that our pictures don't interest anybody except us (and in the best case 2 or 3 others). I used to shoot M4/3, APS-C and FF. The quality of a picture depends on 1 : YOUR EYES. 2 : your technical mastery. 3 : the right lens. Nobody ever told me "Great picture, too bad you took it with the wrong sensor".
You are correct, nobody is interested in my photos. Or yours. Sure my family is interested in the family photos but the ones I take for say street photography, nobody wants to see those lol. The sensor doesn’t matter.
It's the experience of finding and creating that's important. I find my m4/3 gear improves the experience. It just feels right in my hands and allows me to concentrate on everything else.
Your Nikon night photos are stunning! At least you had the opportunity to produce such beautiful photos. I could relate to your style - no tripod, moving around a lot - macro - easy accessibility - affordable. I got a used Lumix G85 and usually use a 14-140 telephoto, image stabilization, for landscape and macro. I can get in close to flowers with sharpness and the telephoto when out gives good dramatic landscape and walk around shots. I love the small size of the micro 4/3 and its lenses. Enjoyed your video.
I went from film to 4/3 to FF to m4/3. No the objective image quality of m4/3 does not reach that of FF, but the difference is either small or manageable (high ISO). So for me m4/3 means good enough image quality with way lower total system weight - a very good compromise. The fact that I can go out for a nature walk or a hike with a proper camera plus 3 quality lenses at a combined weight of just about 1Kg means a lot. New advanced features like hand-held high resolution mode improves the image quality for landscapes further.
I have been working with both systems. Both have advantages and disadvantages. In conclusion I realized that I am the full frame type of photographer, because the resulting images are more pleasing to my eye. And nowadays light and cheap lenses are also available for full frame camera systems - my Fifty Nifty Canon RF 50mm/1.8 weights only 160 grams, and delivers better image quality than a 25mm lens on a mFT camera. So I sold all my OM System gear and went to Canon R full frame. I am very happy and productive with my Canon R6 MkII, which is the most versatile and practical camera I ever owed. Highly recommended!
Thanks for your insightful comment Markus! It's true that the 50mm lenses, especially if you go for a 1.8 instead of a 1.4, can be pretty light and quite cheap too, so I can definitely understand your decision. Especially now that full frame equipment is getting lighter!
You have to apply 2x crop factor to all your MF 4/3 lenses. an f 1.4 is an equivalent 2.8 FF, which is not that fast for a 25mm (50mm FF). If you wanted the same depth of field on a MF you would need a 0.9. Tony Northrup goes into this in depth. @@MyIntrovertedNature
I was thinking of adding FF to my M43 gear, but decided to instead expand my M43 collection. It was a good move - since I am mostly a telephoto shooter, M43 just makes more sense to me. This also let me solely rely on muscle memory, as I don't need to mentally switch between camera bodies. I do prints of my photos - usually 40x30 and 50x40 formats. The megapixel count and sharpness is plenty enough for my usecase.
That makes sense. I miss the time when all I had was one Nikon d800 and a 24-70mm lens. I knew exactly where every button was. That's encouraging about the print size, I'll have to try that.
I have owned the EM1 MIII since 2020 and love it. I sell my work online and through galleries, NEVER have I had a situation where the camera didn't work for me or my client said "why don't you use a FF camera"!!
I sold my Canon R5 and associated lenses and bought a used Lumix G9 and several lenses. Not only did I shrink the size and weight of my kit but I also had money left over.
That's really interesting, because the Canon R5 is a nice camera. But I also heard some nice things about the G9 and I definitely understand why you switched to it.
I switched from Nikon FF to MFT five years ago, and it is still my go to walk around and macro photos. I do have a FF that I pull out for special "lowlight" occasions, but that is rare now days.
The problem with Micro Four Thirds is that there is nothing Micro about it. The word Micro was only used to differentiate it from the original Olympus Four Thirds system. It isnt very much smaller than APSC.
Depends what type of photography you do. Bodies can be similar size but telephoto lenses are much smaller for MFT. I use both MFT and FF. Both have strengths and weaknesses. MFT is best for Macro, Wildlife (when it involves hiking) or handheld with long exposures as IBS is much better in MFT as easier to move a smaller sensor to compensate. FF is much better dynamic range, shallow depth of field and resolution. APS-C is a great compromise as sits in the middle. Good at most things but excels at nothing. There is no best camera system only the best for you.
The GM1 m43 body is the size of a point and shoot pocket camera. Goes perfectly with the small f/1.7 primes. Shame that Panasonic hasn't updated a tiny body with new sensor tech yet.
I had various 35mm cameras in the 1970 to the 1980s - Praktica then Yaschica. When I was again interested in photography in 2000s I bought digital Fuji, I was not too happy with these. When Panasonic made the G1 mft in 2009 I fell in love with it !
I started using M43 as soon as I could get one after owning original 4/3 cameras. And even back in early 2000s (and up to this day) I found editors in all the magazines have never questioned the image quality. The Fool Frame brigade will act like 35mm is the only "professional" format but they are fooling only themselves! And in particular the excellent weather sealing on Olympus E-m1 series and PRO series lenses are better than C,N,S in virtually every review and in my experience with saltwater, mud, sand and fish slime.
God, I am so cheesed of with why I switched to full frame, to APSC or micro four thirds. Just switch to whatever you want, personally I won't go below APSC, that is from previous experience. But everyone's mileage varies, and that is fine.
The advantages of MFT over larger sensors are many--it's really a matter of how much overkill you think you need. Anything much over 20-25MP is wasted (why else would Canon's new US$6,200 flagship EOS R1 have "only" 24MP?). I'd never be able to get a lot of the great images I've been able to produce if I had a lug around larger, heavier lenses with much higher minimum focusing distances and less DoF flexibility. Oly/OM's great, but I prefer Lumix ergo/menus, so I mainly use a G9, G9M2, and GX85 (when I want to travel even lighter) and can often carry 12-800mm EFL (I'm up to nine MFT lenses at this point and all of them together weigh less than some individual "FF" telephotos). I also use a bridge camera (Lumix FZ1000--easy to use one-handed when walking the dogs) and when I really need to go compact (or underwater), there's the Oly TG-5. Even the one-inch and 1/2.3" sensors in those, respectively, are more than enough to make very nice, large prints most of the time, so MFT feels "luxurious" by comparison. Unless you have a very specific need, anything larger is a waste of money and an unnecessary strain on your back/neck for the maybe one in several thousand images where it might make a small difference. The tech has simply gotten to the point where sensor size matters little. Even phones can produce decent images most of the time (but they certainly have their limitations).
Your decision made perfect sense, although these days Canon, Nikon and Panasonic all manufacture relatively lightweight full-frame mirrorless cameras and lenses at a range of price points. Image stabilisation has also improved enormously and is widespread across the industry. To be honest, the majority of photographers using tripods now are simply doing so out of sheer habit. There aren't many occasions when they're required and, like you, I find them a thorough nuisance and almost always leave mine at home.
Thanks Micheal! There's so much choice that I find it hard to keep up with it all. And trying them all out becomes quite expensive at some point. In the end, I think it's more important to have a good time taking photos. I think that tripods are still useful for night photography for example, but I don't get to do that very often. Nowadays, I mainly use my tripod for filming these videos.
@@MyIntrovertedNature Absolutely. I meant to add that cropped sensors offer a distinct advantage for macro photography with the extra depth of field. But yes, if you are satisfied with your equipment and enjoying your hobby then stick with what you have. I own far too much equipment and all told it cost more than my motor car.
@@MichealSeaghdha This is actually a misconception. Yes, at F4 the micro four thirds sensor will have more depth of field, but I can stop a full frame camera down to a much higher F stop without diffraction starting to rob sharpness. So on a M4/3rds system you might be able to go to f8 or f11 before diffraction becomes an issue, on full frame you could do f11 or f16 (just examples) if that makes sense. the depth of field will be nearly if not exactly the same for a given level of diffraction.
@@stephenbrothers9185 Thank you for your valuable insight. I currently own eleven cameras and three macro lenses covering three different sensor sizes and can honestly say that I've never deliberately set aperture to f/16 or felt the need. Nor has diffraction made the slightest discernable difference to any of my image files. I was stating a fact - at any given aperture there's more depth of field on a (micro) four thirds sensor than a full-frame one. For macro photography that helps considerably, especially when combined with image stabilisation systems, which arrived many years earlier on cropped sensor cameras.
@@MichealSeaghdha No disrespect intended, just trying to point out that while you're right, you can get around that on full frame by just stopping down a little more.
Very interesting. I've currently got APS-C (Fuji X-H2) and M43 (OM-1.2) in a back-to-back race to see which system I'm going to stay with. I love the compact nature of M43 and the extra reach you get from the lenses, but I'm finding that some of the lenses (generally the PRO primes) are actually heavier than their Fuji equivalents - not by much, but it all adds up. That being said, what's keeping me from making a decision yet is lenses like the 40-150 f2.8 PRO which is basically unrivalled in other sensor formats. The closest equivalent on Fuji is 50-140 f2.8 (FF equivalent 75-210mm). The reach is shorter, it's a good couple of hundred grams heavier, and despite being stabilised, it's actually less stable than the unstabilised 40-150 that relies solely on the IBIS of the OM-1. I'm ultimately not sure what I'll stick with, but it's very interesting running both of them together and exploring the differences.
Thanks! It's hard to decide between the different systems because they all have their pros and cons. Ultimately, it depends a bit on your needs and a lot on your subjective preference. It's a good idea to run them side by side to see how you feel about them. I find that M43 really shines when it comes to macro photography. I also have a Fujifilm X-H1, and I really like the film simulation. I shoot in both Raw and jpg, and most of the time I just keep the jpg because I like the look.
@@MyIntrovertedNature Absolutely spot on. With two young kids I really don't get time to sit and edit photos, so I'm really valuing the straight from camera jpegs with a film simulation applied - that's what's making it hard for me to sell the Fuji, even though I really, really want to like the OM more!
In my film only days, I shot 35mm full-frame cameras with 21/35/90mm lenses. When I started shooting digital, I shot compact digital cameras with fixed lenses. I switched to micro 4/3 because I needed digital cameras with interchangeable lenses. The Olympus E-P1 and E-P3 were the first digital cameras I purchased with interchangeable lenses. I use the following lenses: 45mm f/1.8 Olympus 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 Panasonic I was very pleased with the micro 4/3 lenses and image quality. However, I was not happy with the Olympus digital camera bodies because they broke too many times. I was also not satisfied with the two full-frame Leica M10 digital rangefinder bodies that I bought as replacements. Both bodies were defective. I was, however, able to use the 21/35/90mm lenses that I used with my Leica M6 35mm film camera. Thus far, I have been very happy with the APS-C Fuji X-Pro2 digital mirrorless with 16/23/56mm lenses.
Micro 4/3rds is a nice system. Low light is about the only thing that it has problems with. If you do get back to doing the night photography a good used full frame and a 24mm or 28mm lens and have fun.
Best way to get rid of noise is to use DXO PhotoLab or DXO PureRaw. I shoot M43 and I have the Olympus OMD E-M1ii and I get clean ISO with Deep PRIME xD at ISO 6,400. There was a bug in the older version of DXO with Deep PRIME xD but they fixed that with the newest release. Deep PRIME that is the older engine is also very good.
I went from film (35/6x7) to 4/3 to m4/3 over a period of 50+ years. Going from RB67 to m4/3 macro/landscape shooting makes sense once you get into your mid-70s. Beats watching TV.
Nice video. For me the dynamic range is a big thing and switching from M43 to my Sony was a massive step up in DR especially with the a7R5. I prefer the size of the m43 of course but now that the Sony gives me the ability to shoot under 1 second hand held easy so for me it’s a no brainer. In the end you shoot with what you like. That’s what matters whether it’s a phone or a specified camera.
Horses for courses I guess....I started with Nikon APS-c, than as it goes I wanted better image and high iso quality and got myself a D750. I am still very happy with it and take it out on special occasions when I do projects, but for walking around and casual street photography I much prefer the so compact M43 system. Got myself a first gen Olympus em5 for peanuts and now I can even afford Leica lenses to go with it....got the tiny (compared to full frame) Lumix 12-35 f2.8 plus two primes - Summilux 15mm f1.7 and 25mm f1.4. This really brought back the joy to my photography again and also people don't feel intimidated when you point a small camera at them :)
I think that MFT is a great compromise between full frame image quality and affordability and portability. I am quite small, and the thought of lugging around a huge camera would not fill me with joy. My GH5 II is just right for me. I have just written, directed and co-starred in my first short film, which we shot on this camera, with two Panasonic prime lenses.
I also owned a D800, and the only thing that moved me away from it was the lack of good video features. When the Z6 and Z7 came out, I thought I would just stay in the Nikon ecosystem, but the new mirrorless cameras didn't measure up to what was available in the Lumix line of M43 cameras. I hesitated moving to a smaller sensor for a couple of years because of the "common wisdom" of smaller sensors = noisy pictures, but when I finally made the switch, I found the GH5M2 was actually cleaner AND focused better than the D800. If the Z8 had been around at the time, I probably would have stayed with Nikon, but as of now, the switch has been made and I'm not feeling any need to make another switch.
That's basically how I'm feeling too. I have to say that the Z8 is appealing, but I don't want to switch yet again. However, I might start saving up for the future when the Z8 will become available on the second-hand market...
I have been using M43 since 2008 , I just bought a FF Nikon to use my vintage Leica M mount lenses and i love it for that BUT the M43 Lumix and Oly always be my EDC. M$# lenses are second to none !
Thanks for your video and I have just stumbled across your channel. I have only ever used mft and the only disadvantage for me is low light performance, otherwise the advantages outweigh 😂 the disadvantages.
You're welcome! I really like the weight on low cost of the lenses. When it comes to weight of the camera bodies, I'm a bit unsure because my Panasonic GH5s weighs basically as much as a full frame camera...
have you tried nikon 1 and etc? the system is schnitzel, and the bodies are not smaller than the mft-s, but the sensor is smaller and with 50mm you have 140mm. with 300mm - 840mm and the sensors are kind of different and fun. with nikon 1 v1,2,3 you could shoot with 1200 fps and it costs a beer and a half and has a viewfinder. The samsungs are great too, if you could find one
I think image quality is only noticeable when you pixel peep. At regular viewing size on a 27 inch screen they look identical. Ofc you have wiggle room for processing but if something looks great then how are you really going to improve on that.
I sold my D700 with wonderful lenses because Nikon stopped supporting my expensive AF-D lenses the required a motor in the camera to autofocus. Instead of smaller, Z Mount lenses became way bigger and I did not see the point. Z8 is the pinnacle of cameras due to the stacked sensor. But it is EUR 4500, for that money I can buy a new OM-1 with stacked sensor and better viewfinder 5 MP, and additional mechanical shutter + 2 super quality f2.8 lenses giving me a full frame converted zoom range of 24 mm - 300 mm with a f2.8 speed. I know that I loose dof but that French is an advantage rather than a disadvantage.
There's cheap FF systems, there's small and light and cheap ff lenses unless one goes for the brightest apertures. Main benefit of m43 for me is the reach w smaller lenses. Though fullframe systems introduced some alternatives in that area too. Frankly unless they stick to their strengths plus restart innovation, they wont be able to keep up with costly cameras and lenses.
My beloved one keeps telling me: launch a youtube channel and do gear review ! Well, she's right (they are always right, isn't it :) ) i owned tons of cameras, started by a Canon 70D, through Fuji X-T3, 5 and 5, a Canon 6D II, a Nikon Z6 and Z6II, a Sony A7 III, IV, and my last was a A7R V... which i sold and bought a nice MFT, because i discovered more that half of my printed photos which i love the most are made with the Lumix GX85 !!! Now, after your video, and reading the comments, i am sure i am not alone, and that i am not crazy (so far)... and yeah, i spent lot of money in exchange of "discovering myself" :) Thank you for this message
Just for the record, I hate image noise BUT... I have been shooting Olympus gear since 2007, now shooting with the E-M1X (not exactly "small" but I still pack it and my lenses into some rather remote areas for my landscapes/wildlife shooting. The advancements with in-camera processors and post-processing noise reduction make much of this a mute point. Sure, full frame sensors are going to outperform on the technical level but at the end of the day, after printing hanging an image on the wall, there's insufficient difference in quality at normal viewing distances to warrant my investment in heavier and far more expensive systems. In this day and age, who honestly notices the differences aside from photographers? I grew up in the film era and recall well my dad's 4x5 macro work with a bellows setup... We've come a long way since but some things haven't changed: It's still about one's creativity and how they use the tools, yes? :) Nicely presented video, by the way.
Thanks! And you are right, most of us do not need full frame cameras. I took some film photographs recently (35mm Kodak Gold) and I was surprised how much grain there was when I looked at the scanned photographs. That just shows how we have become used to very clean images. But I find that at some point, it starts to look a bit clinical. Wow, macro with a 4x5 camera with bellows must have been difficult to do. We’re so lucky to have these light cameras as they allow us to focus on creativity.
I have both, sometimes I think of getting rid of both and just having an aps-c, but for what I paid for my mft kit vs what I'd get if I sold it, it's not worth getting rid of. The full frame stuff on the other hand, is marked for liquidation. I might replace it with aps-c, or even another full frame not from Canon, but I can confidently sell it all off since I have a bag of mft stuff to use anyway. I doubt I will go stirctly mft, but I might be for a little while as I relegate Canon to the dustbin of history.
I agree. I really wanted to like Canon. I started taking pictures on Canon film cameras and had a 60D years ago, but it's just not ideal for what I do anymore.
If you are a hobby level photographer having a full frame camera doesn’t matter. But if you are selling large format prints regularly like I do having a full frame ccd is a must.
That's an important point. I'm currently taking photos "just" for myself and not selling them, so a smaller sensor is fine. But for professionals, I'm sure it's a completely different story.
Interesting that you specifically mentioned CCD? Which modern cameras use those sensors? Far as I know the mainstream brands (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji etc) stopped using them around 15 years ago.
Let's go back to the 1 mb cameras, and I am sure there are TH-camrs or Influencers, who claim that those pictures were the best quality they have ever gotten. And that those cameras are the best the industry ever developed. Why shall we spend thousands of Dollars or Euros, when life can be so easy.
It's interesting to hear your story, but the video gets too heavy after a few minutes. I recommend using more photos, or perhaps talking in the field or something more dynamic. Watching a person talking and talking is not fun. I'm not trying to bash you, but to help you improve 😊
@@MyIntrovertedNature adding to the other person who commented. Why have music while you are talking, at the same time? What is the point? When you are talking, let that be the sole audio otherwise the music is just an unnecessary distraction! When you sre showing us your work without talking you could have a low audio in the background. Like the other comments: we are not trying to bash your videos and channel but to provide constructive criticism that you can reject or can use
@@joestrahl6980 Thanks Joe, really appreciate your constructive feedback. From now on, I will make sure not to add music to the parts where I am talking. I agree that music can be distracting, and that it works much better when added to "b-roll" (the parts where I am not talking).
@@MyIntrovertedNature subscribed to your channel. I started out with a Panasonic GX9 in 2019 as a gift from my family but it was really only during the pandemic that my photography and videography began. In October 2020 I bought a G80 on sale. I am a university lecturer so during the pandemic I was recording lectures both at home, sometimes at university, but also outdoors since I teach primarily Environmental Studies and the students appreciated lectures in a nature preserve when they were otherwise at home. In May 2021 I bought a DJI Mini 2 and in April/May 2022 I bought a G9 on sale. And of course other things along the way. You say "lack of development in the micro four thirds system" but...is it really a lack of development? The new Lumix G9ii has hybrid focus which brings Panasonic into line with Olympus/OMSystems... I think that system cameras largely have reached a plateau (like cellphones, there is little difference in 5 years looking back, sure some cellphones have bigger and brighter screens, some have better "cameras" but should we also say the same of cellphones that we should not invest in a particular brand because of "lack of development?). Cameras again: what can they do? What developments are absolutely necessary and which are bells and whistles that are nice to have but not necessary? There are companies and influencers that are constantly talking about the need for 8K video blah. blah.... that if you are serious you must buy the latest and greatest. And yet your laptop screen is 1080p or essentially 1k and most laptops have been at best that resolution for about ten years. What is the point of 8K video for almost all use cases. But there is an undercurrent on YT talking about buying used cameras with low shutter counts since 15 years ago, most digital cameras seldom had over an 8 megapixel sensor and there were fantastic images at the time that no one thought were bad....since most pictures taken today are on social media on screens on cell phones or under 17inch diameter screens, what do all the extra megapixels on our cameras useful for. It is just marketing! I follow a British photographer th-cam.com/video/2sdzSanEuYk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=5MMKw7giNBMKOZKB who said a few videos ago about a camera "really, who actually needs a 61 megapixel sensor" oh it actually wasn't that video but close enough.... It would only be someone who needs to do incredibly deep crops into the image or who might print really really big, but even so in the latter case the larger the print on a gallery wall, the greater the distance we stand from the print to be able to see it all...which means that 20 megapixels is almost always plenty. I look over with envy at Olympus/OMSystems with built in simulated ND filters. But I look at Nikon Z9 with envy since there is no analog shutter anymore but instead a sensor protector which falls into place when you take off a lens and then flips out of the way when you mount a new lens. But I remind myself: photography is not my money making activity so I should be happier about getting better with what I have and not chase the latest where there are "developments" and with the exception of low light, I am incredibly happy with my kit. I have two YT channels and post not so often and irregularly. Perhaps you could take a look at this one: th-cam.com/channels/5KdvuU47ie3xB9VMeZ2B4g.html and my most recent video? The other channel has mostly my lectures that have not been uploaded internally on an internal university server. I hope that you did not find my no music while talking suggestion a problem. Clearly there can be circumstances where some very low volume music can be in the background edited in in post when you or anyone else is talking to a camera. But coming from the world of teaching and learning, it is usually best to have clear talking since some of your audience might be hearing impaired and by thinking about this with my students, this carries over to the rest of my internet presence. Later this week I will be looking at some over your other videos on your channel since work is calling me back, ha.
Did you recently change from another sensor size to micro four thirds? Are you happy with your decision?
I switched from APS-C last year to M43. I wanted something more compact and lighter for street and documentary photography. I have a Lumix GX85 and two Panasonic Leica prime lenses. Very happy with the quality of the lenses and small size of the camera. Something like the Sony A7C and two compact Sony lenses would work for me but it was 2.5 times the price. DXO Pure Raw is fantastic for removing noise. I am very happy with this system.
@@hanumanguy sounds great! Indeed, the Sony A7C is something I looked at but the price would have been much higher. I'll have to try out Dxo pure raw at some point.
@@MyIntrovertedNature I meant DXO Pure Raw is great for removing noise, you can probably go a couple of stops higher with confidence even 3200 or 6400. And yes Sony is expensive and if you need a zoom you are back to big camera again!
Yes. I switched from Fuji to Olympus. Love the 4/3 format.
@@grumpyoldphotographer9624 That's interesting. I always thought that I wanted to try Fuji, but am quite happy with my m43 gear now.
And an other video "FF vs smaller sensor" 🙄 Maybe we could all remember that our pictures don't interest anybody except us (and in the best case 2 or 3 others). I used to shoot M4/3, APS-C and FF. The quality of a picture depends on 1 : YOUR EYES. 2 : your technical mastery. 3 : the right lens. Nobody ever told me "Great picture, too bad you took it with the wrong sensor".
You're right, our eyes and vision are more important than our equipment.
My wall is huge prints of both and you cant tell at all. All that matters is the color, clarity and energy in the photo.
You are correct, nobody is interested in my photos. Or yours. Sure my family is interested in the family photos but the ones I take for say street photography, nobody wants to see those lol. The sensor doesn’t matter.
I enjoy my m4/3 system and my full frame. I use them both regularly. They both offer things I love.
Good advice to choose a system that best suits your situation and the way you're going to use the camera. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Thanks Trevor! I'm looking forward to using the micro four thirds cameras !
It's the experience of finding and creating that's important. I find my m4/3 gear improves the experience. It just feels right in my hands and allows me to concentrate on everything else.
Exactly. I find that it helps with creativity. I remember getting tendinitis from holding my Nikon d800. It's definitely easier with the m43 cameras.
Your Nikon night photos are stunning! At least you had the opportunity to produce such beautiful photos. I could relate to your style - no tripod, moving around a lot - macro - easy accessibility - affordable. I got a used Lumix G85 and usually use a 14-140 telephoto, image stabilization, for landscape and macro. I can get in close to flowers with sharpness and the telephoto when out gives good dramatic landscape and walk around shots. I love the small size of the micro 4/3 and its lenses. Enjoyed your video.
I went from film to 4/3 to FF to m4/3. No the objective image quality of m4/3 does not reach that of FF, but the difference is either small or manageable (high ISO). So for me m4/3 means good enough image quality with way lower total system weight - a very good compromise. The fact that I can go out for a nature walk or a hike with a proper camera plus 3 quality lenses at a combined weight of just about 1Kg means a lot. New advanced features like hand-held high resolution mode improves the image quality for landscapes further.
That's exactly the reason why I'm interested in m43. You don't need to choose which lens to take on a hike. Especially compared to medium format film!
I have been working with both systems. Both have advantages and disadvantages. In conclusion I realized that I am the full frame type of photographer, because the resulting images are more pleasing to my eye. And nowadays light and cheap lenses are also available for full frame camera systems - my Fifty Nifty Canon RF 50mm/1.8 weights only 160 grams, and delivers better image quality than a 25mm lens on a mFT camera.
So I sold all my OM System gear and went to Canon R full frame. I am very happy and productive with my Canon R6 MkII, which is the most versatile and practical camera I ever owed. Highly recommended!
Thanks for your insightful comment Markus! It's true that the 50mm lenses, especially if you go for a 1.8 instead of a 1.4, can be pretty light and quite cheap too, so I can definitely understand your decision. Especially now that full frame equipment is getting lighter!
You have to apply 2x crop factor to all your MF 4/3 lenses. an f 1.4 is an equivalent 2.8 FF, which is not that fast for a 25mm (50mm FF). If you wanted the same depth of field on a MF you would need a 0.9. Tony Northrup goes into this in depth. @@MyIntrovertedNature
I was thinking of adding FF to my M43 gear, but decided to instead expand my M43 collection. It was a good move - since I am mostly a telephoto shooter, M43 just makes more sense to me. This also let me solely rely on muscle memory, as I don't need to mentally switch between camera bodies.
I do prints of my photos - usually 40x30 and 50x40 formats. The megapixel count and sharpness is plenty enough for my usecase.
That makes sense. I miss the time when all I had was one Nikon d800 and a 24-70mm lens. I knew exactly where every button was.
That's encouraging about the print size, I'll have to try that.
Good thoughts - I can only agree. The advantage outperform the disadvantages in 90% of the time. What’s not to like?
I have owned the EM1 MIII since 2020 and love it. I sell my work online and through galleries, NEVER have I had a situation where the camera didn't work for me or my client said "why don't you use a FF camera"!!
I sold my Canon R5 and associated lenses and bought a used Lumix G9 and several lenses. Not only did I shrink the size and weight of my kit but I also had money left over.
That's really interesting, because the Canon R5 is a nice camera. But I also heard some nice things about the G9 and I definitely understand why you switched to it.
I switched from Nikon FF to MFT five years ago, and it is still my go to walk around and macro photos. I do have a FF that I pull out for special "lowlight" occasions, but that is rare now days.
The problem with Micro Four Thirds is that there is nothing Micro about it. The word Micro was only used to differentiate it from the original Olympus Four Thirds system. It isnt very much smaller than APSC.
Depends what type of photography you do. Bodies can be similar size but telephoto lenses are much smaller for MFT. I use both MFT and FF. Both have strengths and weaknesses. MFT is best for Macro, Wildlife (when it involves hiking) or handheld with long exposures as IBS is much better in MFT as easier to move a smaller sensor to compensate. FF is much better dynamic range, shallow depth of field and resolution. APS-C is a great compromise as sits in the middle. Good at most things but excels at nothing. There is no best camera system only the best for you.
That's my opinion too. In the long term, I am planning to stick with MFT for wildlife and macro, and FF for landscape.
The GM1 m43 body is the size of a point and shoot pocket camera. Goes perfectly with the small f/1.7 primes. Shame that Panasonic hasn't updated a tiny body with new sensor tech yet.
I had various 35mm cameras in the 1970 to the 1980s - Praktica then Yaschica. When I was again interested in photography in 2000s I bought digital Fuji, I was not too happy with these. When Panasonic made the G1 mft in 2009 I fell in love with it !
Hopefully, you will share some of your own favourite images in upcoming videos. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Cheers.
You're welcome, and yes, that's what I am planning to do.
I started using M43 as soon as I could get one after owning original 4/3 cameras. And even back in early 2000s (and up to this day) I found editors in all the magazines have never questioned the image quality. The Fool Frame brigade will act like 35mm is the only "professional" format but they are fooling only themselves! And in particular the excellent weather sealing on Olympus E-m1 series and PRO series lenses are better than C,N,S in virtually every review and in my experience with saltwater, mud, sand and fish slime.
God, I am so cheesed of with why I switched to full frame, to APSC or micro four thirds.
Just switch to whatever you want, personally I won't go below APSC, that is from previous experience. But everyone's mileage varies, and that is fine.
The advantages of MFT over larger sensors are many--it's really a matter of how much overkill you think you need. Anything much over 20-25MP is wasted (why else would Canon's new US$6,200 flagship EOS R1 have "only" 24MP?). I'd never be able to get a lot of the great images I've been able to produce if I had a lug around larger, heavier lenses with much higher minimum focusing distances and less DoF flexibility. Oly/OM's great, but I prefer Lumix ergo/menus, so I mainly use a G9, G9M2, and GX85 (when I want to travel even lighter) and can often carry 12-800mm EFL (I'm up to nine MFT lenses at this point and all of them together weigh less than some individual "FF" telephotos). I also use a bridge camera (Lumix FZ1000--easy to use one-handed when walking the dogs) and when I really need to go compact (or underwater), there's the Oly TG-5. Even the one-inch and 1/2.3" sensors in those, respectively, are more than enough to make very nice, large prints most of the time, so MFT feels "luxurious" by comparison. Unless you have a very specific need, anything larger is a waste of money and an unnecessary strain on your back/neck for the maybe one in several thousand images where it might make a small difference. The tech has simply gotten to the point where sensor size matters little. Even phones can produce decent images most of the time (but they certainly have their limitations).
Congratulations on your family. I always say, use what works for you. If it's mft, use mft. If it's full frame, use full frame. Happy shooting.
Gotta make sure your camera is in focus, man. Throughout the entire video it's focused on the background.
Thanks for letting me know, no idea how I hadn't noticed that!
That is called zone focusing 😂 Well at least on a small screen it is acceptable in focus
Your decision made perfect sense, although these days Canon, Nikon and Panasonic all manufacture relatively lightweight full-frame mirrorless cameras and lenses at a range of price points. Image stabilisation has also improved enormously and is widespread across the industry. To be honest, the majority of photographers using tripods now are simply doing so out of sheer habit. There aren't many occasions when they're required and, like you, I find them a thorough nuisance and almost always leave mine at home.
Thanks Micheal! There's so much choice that I find it hard to keep up with it all. And trying them all out becomes quite expensive at some point. In the end, I think it's more important to have a good time taking photos. I think that tripods are still useful for night photography for example, but I don't get to do that very often. Nowadays, I mainly use my tripod for filming these videos.
@@MyIntrovertedNature Absolutely. I meant to add that cropped sensors offer a distinct advantage for macro photography with the extra depth of field. But yes, if you are satisfied with your equipment and enjoying your hobby then stick with what you have. I own far too much equipment and all told it cost more than my motor car.
@@MichealSeaghdha This is actually a misconception. Yes, at F4 the micro four thirds sensor will have more depth of field, but I can stop a full frame camera down to a much higher F stop without diffraction starting to rob sharpness. So on a M4/3rds system you might be able to go to f8 or f11 before diffraction becomes an issue, on full frame you could do f11 or f16 (just examples) if that makes sense. the depth of field will be nearly if not exactly the same for a given level of diffraction.
@@stephenbrothers9185 Thank you for your valuable insight. I currently own eleven cameras and three macro lenses covering three different sensor sizes and can honestly say that I've never deliberately set aperture to f/16 or felt the need. Nor has diffraction made the slightest discernable difference to any of my image files. I was stating a fact - at any given aperture there's more depth of field on a (micro) four thirds sensor than a full-frame one. For macro photography that helps considerably, especially when combined with image stabilisation systems, which arrived many years earlier on cropped sensor cameras.
@@MichealSeaghdha No disrespect intended, just trying to point out that while you're right, you can get around that on full frame by just stopping down a little more.
Very interesting. I've currently got APS-C (Fuji X-H2) and M43 (OM-1.2) in a back-to-back race to see which system I'm going to stay with. I love the compact nature of M43 and the extra reach you get from the lenses, but I'm finding that some of the lenses (generally the PRO primes) are actually heavier than their Fuji equivalents - not by much, but it all adds up. That being said, what's keeping me from making a decision yet is lenses like the 40-150 f2.8 PRO which is basically unrivalled in other sensor formats. The closest equivalent on Fuji is 50-140 f2.8 (FF equivalent 75-210mm). The reach is shorter, it's a good couple of hundred grams heavier, and despite being stabilised, it's actually less stable than the unstabilised 40-150 that relies solely on the IBIS of the OM-1.
I'm ultimately not sure what I'll stick with, but it's very interesting running both of them together and exploring the differences.
Thanks! It's hard to decide between the different systems because they all have their pros and cons. Ultimately, it depends a bit on your needs and a lot on your subjective preference. It's a good idea to run them side by side to see how you feel about them. I find that M43 really shines when it comes to macro photography. I also have a Fujifilm X-H1, and I really like the film simulation. I shoot in both Raw and jpg, and most of the time I just keep the jpg because I like the look.
@@MyIntrovertedNature Absolutely spot on. With two young kids I really don't get time to sit and edit photos, so I'm really valuing the straight from camera jpegs with a film simulation applied - that's what's making it hard for me to sell the Fuji, even though I really, really want to like the OM more!
@@benejpocock Same here, I'd rather play with my two children than edit photos!
In my film only days, I shot 35mm full-frame cameras with 21/35/90mm lenses.
When I started shooting digital, I shot compact digital cameras with fixed lenses.
I switched to micro 4/3 because I needed digital cameras with interchangeable lenses. The Olympus E-P1 and E-P3 were the first digital cameras I purchased with interchangeable lenses. I use the following lenses:
45mm f/1.8 Olympus
20mm f/1.7 Panasonic
14mm f/2.5 Panasonic
I was very pleased with the micro 4/3 lenses and image quality. However, I was not happy with the Olympus digital camera bodies because they broke too many times.
I was also not satisfied with the two full-frame Leica M10 digital rangefinder bodies that I bought as replacements. Both bodies were defective. I was, however, able to use the 21/35/90mm lenses that I used with my Leica M6 35mm film camera.
Thus far, I have been very happy with the APS-C Fuji X-Pro2 digital mirrorless with 16/23/56mm lenses.
Micro 4/3rds is a nice system. Low light is about the only thing that it has problems with. If you do get back to doing the night photography a good used full frame and a 24mm or 28mm lens and have fun.
Absolutely agree, and I'm sure I'll go back to night photography at some point!
Best way to get rid of noise is to use DXO PhotoLab or DXO PureRaw. I shoot M43 and I have the Olympus OMD E-M1ii and I get clean ISO with Deep PRIME xD at ISO 6,400. There was a bug in the older version of DXO with Deep PRIME xD but they fixed that with the newest release. Deep PRIME that is the older engine is also very good.
I went from film (35/6x7) to 4/3 to m4/3 over a period of 50+ years. Going from RB67 to m4/3 macro/landscape shooting makes sense once you get into your mid-70s. Beats watching TV.
Nice video. For me the dynamic range is a big thing and switching from M43 to my Sony was a massive step up in DR especially with the a7R5. I prefer the size of the m43 of course but now that the Sony gives me the ability to shoot under 1 second hand held easy so for me it’s a no brainer. In the end you shoot with what you like. That’s what matters whether it’s a phone or a specified camera.
You're right. Secretly, I'm saving up for a Nikon Z8, but I only want to buy it when I think that I can afford it.
Horses for courses I guess....I started with Nikon APS-c, than as it goes I wanted better image and high iso quality and got myself a D750. I am still very
happy with it and take it out on special occasions when I do projects, but for walking around and casual street photography I much prefer the so compact M43 system. Got myself a first gen Olympus em5 for peanuts and now I can even afford Leica lenses to go with it....got the tiny (compared to full frame) Lumix 12-35 f2.8 plus two primes - Summilux 15mm f1.7 and 25mm f1.4. This really brought back the joy to my photography again and also people don't feel intimidated when you point a small camera at them :)
I think that MFT is a great compromise between full frame image quality and affordability and portability. I am quite small, and the thought of lugging around a huge camera would not fill me with joy. My GH5 II is just right for me. I have just written, directed and co-starred in my first short film, which we shot on this camera, with two Panasonic prime lenses.
I also owned a D800, and the only thing that moved me away from it was the lack of good video features. When the Z6 and Z7 came out, I thought I would just stay in the Nikon ecosystem, but the new mirrorless cameras didn't measure up to what was available in the Lumix line of M43 cameras. I hesitated moving to a smaller sensor for a couple of years because of the "common wisdom" of smaller sensors = noisy pictures, but when I finally made the switch, I found the GH5M2 was actually cleaner AND focused better than the D800. If the Z8 had been around at the time, I probably would have stayed with Nikon, but as of now, the switch has been made and I'm not feeling any need to make another switch.
That's basically how I'm feeling too. I have to say that the Z8 is appealing, but I don't want to switch yet again. However, I might start saving up for the future when the Z8 will become available on the second-hand market...
I have been using M43 since 2008 , I just bought a FF Nikon to use my vintage Leica M mount lenses and i love it for that BUT the M43 Lumix and Oly always be my EDC. M$# lenses are second to none !
Thanks for your video and I have just stumbled across your channel. I have only ever used mft and the only disadvantage for me is low light performance, otherwise the advantages outweigh 😂 the disadvantages.
You're welcome! I really like the weight on low cost of the lenses. When it comes to weight of the camera bodies, I'm a bit unsure because my Panasonic GH5s weighs basically as much as a full frame camera...
have you tried nikon 1 and etc? the system is schnitzel, and the bodies are not smaller than the mft-s, but the sensor is smaller and with 50mm you have 140mm. with 300mm - 840mm and the sensors are kind of different and fun. with nikon 1 v1,2,3 you could shoot with 1200 fps and it costs a beer and a half and has a viewfinder. The samsungs are great too, if you could find one
Actually, I had not heard of the Nikon 1 before!
for basic macro the oly 30mm f3.5 is tough to beat as it is lightweight sharp and simple.
I think image quality is only noticeable when you pixel peep. At regular viewing size on a 27 inch screen they look identical.
Ofc you have wiggle room for processing but if something looks great then how are you really going to improve on that.
I sold my D700 with wonderful lenses because Nikon stopped supporting my expensive AF-D lenses the required a motor in the camera to autofocus. Instead of smaller, Z Mount lenses became way bigger and I did not see the point. Z8 is the pinnacle of cameras due to the stacked sensor. But it is EUR 4500, for that money I can buy a new OM-1 with stacked sensor and better viewfinder 5 MP, and additional mechanical shutter + 2 super quality f2.8 lenses giving me a full frame converted zoom range of 24 mm - 300 mm with a f2.8 speed. I know that I loose dof but that French is an advantage rather than a disadvantage.
There's cheap FF systems, there's small and light and cheap ff lenses unless one goes for the brightest apertures. Main benefit of m43 for me is the reach w smaller lenses. Though fullframe systems introduced some alternatives in that area too. Frankly unless they stick to their strengths plus restart innovation, they wont be able to keep up with costly cameras and lenses.
My beloved one keeps telling me: launch a youtube channel and do gear review ! Well, she's right (they are always right, isn't it :) ) i owned tons of cameras, started by a Canon 70D, through Fuji X-T3, 5 and 5, a Canon 6D II, a Nikon Z6 and Z6II, a Sony A7 III, IV, and my last was a A7R V... which i sold and bought a nice MFT, because i discovered more that half of my printed photos which i love the most are made with the Lumix GX85 !!!
Now, after your video, and reading the comments, i am sure i am not alone, and that i am not crazy (so far)... and yeah, i spent lot of money in exchange of "discovering myself" :)
Thank you for this message
Wow, that's a lot of cameras, and yes they are always right! I think it comes down to finding the camera using and stick with it.
Just for the record, I hate image noise BUT... I have been shooting Olympus gear since 2007, now shooting with the E-M1X (not exactly "small" but I still pack it and my lenses into some rather remote areas for my landscapes/wildlife shooting. The advancements with in-camera processors and post-processing noise reduction make much of this a mute point. Sure, full frame sensors are going to outperform on the technical level but at the end of the day, after printing hanging an image on the wall, there's insufficient difference in quality at normal viewing distances to warrant my investment in heavier and far more expensive systems. In this day and age, who honestly notices the differences aside from photographers? I grew up in the film era and recall well my dad's 4x5 macro work with a bellows setup... We've come a long way since but some things haven't changed: It's still about one's creativity and how they use the tools, yes? :)
Nicely presented video, by the way.
Thanks! And you are right, most of us do not need full frame cameras. I took some film photographs recently (35mm Kodak Gold) and I was surprised how much grain there was when I looked at the scanned photographs. That just shows how we have become used to very clean images. But I find that at some point, it starts to look a bit clinical. Wow, macro with a 4x5 camera with bellows must have been difficult to do. We’re so lucky to have these light cameras as they allow us to focus on creativity.
I have both, sometimes I think of getting rid of both and just having an aps-c, but for what I paid for my mft kit vs what I'd get if I sold it, it's not worth getting rid of. The full frame stuff on the other hand, is marked for liquidation. I might replace it with aps-c, or even another full frame not from Canon, but I can confidently sell it all off since I have a bag of mft stuff to use anyway. I doubt I will go stirctly mft, but I might be for a little while as I relegate Canon to the dustbin of history.
I agree. I really wanted to like Canon. I started taking pictures on Canon film cameras and had a 60D years ago, but it's just not ideal for what I do anymore.
If you are a hobby level photographer having a full frame camera doesn’t matter. But if you are selling large format prints regularly like I do having a full frame ccd is a must.
That's an important point. I'm currently taking photos "just" for myself and not selling them, so a smaller sensor is fine. But for professionals, I'm sure it's a completely different story.
Interesting that you specifically mentioned CCD? Which modern cameras use those sensors? Far as I know the mainstream brands (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji etc) stopped using them around 15 years ago.
@@truthseeker3536 ya you got me. I still use old school terms because I’m an old guy. I know it is CMOS .
Thank but the music was loud (vs speech) 😉
Autofocus is delirious
smaller sensor better pictures. So why don`t you use a phone. Even smaller sensor.
Interesting topic, but can't stop looking at this: Your video is focussed on the dead wood behind you, leaving your face out of focus.
Let's go back to the 1 mb cameras, and I am sure there are TH-camrs or Influencers, who claim that those pictures were the best quality they have ever gotten. And that those cameras are the best the industry ever developed. Why shall we spend thousands of Dollars or Euros, when life can be so easy.
It's interesting to hear your story, but the video gets too heavy after a few minutes. I recommend using more photos, or perhaps talking in the field or something more dynamic. Watching a person talking and talking is not fun. I'm not trying to bash you, but to help you improve 😊
Thanks, and I agree with you. I'll try to make it more dynamic the next time 😀
@@MyIntrovertedNature Could I also respectfully add that the music got louder and louder and began to drown you out at one point!
@@MyIntrovertedNature adding to the other person who commented. Why have music while you are talking, at the same time? What is the point? When you are talking, let that be the sole audio otherwise the music is just an unnecessary distraction! When you sre showing us your work without talking you could have a low audio in the background.
Like the other comments: we are not trying to bash your videos and channel but to provide constructive criticism that you can reject or can use
@@joestrahl6980 Thanks Joe, really appreciate your constructive feedback. From now on, I will make sure not to add music to the parts where I am talking. I agree that music can be distracting, and that it works much better when added to "b-roll" (the parts where I am not talking).
@@MyIntrovertedNature subscribed to your channel.
I started out with a Panasonic GX9 in 2019 as a gift from my family but it was really only during the pandemic that my photography and videography began. In October 2020 I bought a G80 on sale. I am a university lecturer so during the pandemic I was recording lectures both at home, sometimes at university, but also outdoors since I teach primarily Environmental Studies and the students appreciated lectures in a nature preserve when they were otherwise at home. In May 2021 I bought a DJI Mini 2 and in April/May 2022 I bought a G9 on sale. And of course other things along the way.
You say "lack of development in the micro four thirds system" but...is it really a lack of development? The new Lumix G9ii has hybrid focus which brings Panasonic into line with Olympus/OMSystems... I think that system cameras largely have reached a plateau (like cellphones, there is little difference in 5 years looking back, sure some cellphones have bigger and brighter screens, some have better "cameras" but should we also say the same of cellphones that we should not invest in a particular brand because of "lack of development?). Cameras again: what can they do? What developments are absolutely necessary and which are bells and whistles that are nice to have but not necessary? There are companies and influencers that are constantly talking about the need for 8K video blah. blah.... that if you are serious you must buy the latest and greatest. And yet your laptop screen is 1080p or essentially 1k and most laptops have been at best that resolution for about ten years. What is the point of 8K video for almost all use cases. But there is an undercurrent on YT talking about buying used cameras with low shutter counts since 15 years ago, most digital cameras seldom had over an 8 megapixel sensor and there were fantastic images at the time that no one thought were bad....since most pictures taken today are on social media on screens on cell phones or under 17inch diameter screens, what do all the extra megapixels on our cameras useful for. It is just marketing!
I follow a British photographer th-cam.com/video/2sdzSanEuYk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=5MMKw7giNBMKOZKB who said a few videos ago about a camera "really, who actually needs a 61 megapixel sensor" oh it actually wasn't that video but close enough....
It would only be someone who needs to do incredibly deep crops into the image or who might print really really big, but even so in the latter case the larger the print on a gallery wall, the greater the distance we stand from the print to be able to see it all...which means that 20 megapixels is almost always plenty.
I look over with envy at Olympus/OMSystems with built in simulated ND filters. But I look at Nikon Z9 with envy since there is no analog shutter anymore but instead a sensor protector which falls into place when you take off a lens and then flips out of the way when you mount a new lens. But I remind myself: photography is not my money making activity so I should be happier about getting better with what I have and not chase the latest where there are "developments" and with the exception of low light, I am incredibly happy with my kit.
I have two YT channels and post not so often and irregularly. Perhaps you could take a look at this one:
th-cam.com/channels/5KdvuU47ie3xB9VMeZ2B4g.html and my most recent video? The other channel has mostly my lectures that have not been uploaded internally on an internal university server.
I hope that you did not find my no music while talking suggestion a problem. Clearly there can be circumstances where some very low volume music can be in the background edited in in post when you or anyone else is talking to a camera. But coming from the world of teaching and learning, it is usually best to have clear talking since some of your audience might be hearing impaired and by thinking about this with my students, this carries over to the rest of my internet presence.
Later this week I will be looking at some over your other videos on your channel since work is calling me back, ha.
I was struggling to hear you. I think Spotify got into your video.
Your eyes are out of focus.