Hello, I hope you enjoy this little mix of gear-breakdown and snowy adventures! :D Thank you so much to OM System for letting me try out their new OM-3. Check out further details of this lovely and secretly beastly camera here: serv.linkster.co/r/lPkW7SXdqg Wishing you a lovely week!
Teo, my first ever camera was also a GX80 courtesy of your TH-cam videos from a while back! I loved that camera so much but recently switched to film photography so had to sell to afford more film….but this has made me want to potentially pick one up again! Continue to inspire! 📸🫡
I absolutely love the way OM systems is going with their designs, Olympus has rich history in camera design that blended aesthetics with functionality, why not borrow some of that? I would absolutely LOVE to see them recreate an Olympus XA like they did to this om-3
Thanks for this excellent video. Marvelously produced with vibrant colors and a convincing message. Couldn’t agree more with its arguments and conclusions: m43 is still relevant and addresses my needs as a photographer with technologies that are always at the forefront of what’s available elsewhere. This in spite of the higher IQ larger sensors can produce (I have a Nikon D780 and there is a clear advantage in low light-but it’s so heavy I barely use it). What m43 gives us more than compensates for my needs. That’s why I’ve been a devoted user since 2008 when I got the e510 and now I rely on the superb OM-1 Mk II. This year I preordered my new OM-3 after trying it out at the launch event in Tokyo. It was love at first sight!
i started photography with a canon 600d in 2018. after some time i kinda stopped, but last year i bought the gx80 and im so back into it, its crazy. i love the small size and the more classic style of the mft cameras. plus (from a student pov) the prizes are just insane. most of the gear i own cost around 200 to 300€ used. for everyone that want to do this as a hobby i can highly recommend these cameras. btw i really love the style of ur videos ^^ thanks for ur work
As someone who shoots FF and m 4/3's. I feel M 4/3 is absolutely worth it in 2025. People focus on the wrong things IMO. I have the A7IV and OM-1. My Sony next to my OM is boring. Yes it has 33mp, yes it's FF. But it has zero computational features. Lenses are expensive and heavy as hell. I just sold my 35-150 Friday because the A7IV FPS is crippled with it. 6fp, same as the OM-3. Electronic shutter is junk, rolling shutter on moving subjects is horrendous. Auto white balance is garbage. FF is not for everyone. To get equal FF gear. = as in quality, weather sealing, aperture. M 4/3 is much better for most people. Sadly they don't know it because they will never give it a chance.
Yeah, thanks for the comment. I also sometimes feel like people just block out M4/3 as a system because they falsely think that it's subpar for some reason. I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one who think the system is totally worth it even now :)
The M43 is an ideal format for travel, nature and just anywhere you'd want to keep the size and weight of your gear down. I shoot on full frame, APSC and M43 with multiple brands, but I nearly always revert to M43 because of the form factor.... Having said that, my Canon M system kit gives it a run for its money apart from the increased reach from the 2x crop of M43.
Agreed... My A7CR is sitting more and more these days now that I have invested in a few good M43 lenses. The GM1 is about as close to a phone replacement as we will get. With modern noise reduction, the gap is bridged even more.
I've found MFT excellent for my causal style of shooting, haven't touched my DSLR since I got my MFT. Despite being from 2014, with a smaller sensor and the fact that I edit JPEGs, a few people have been really surprised with the results I've been able to get with it, it's also really compact and that's great. I think too much people sweat it too much when it comes to photography.
Mhmm good, and often underestimated, point! I totally forgot to further elaborate on this in the video, but I guess it's long enough already haha. But a good looking camera can be such an underrated advantage, because it'll inspire you and lead to you shooting more than if you had a boring or (dare I say) ugly camera. I think OMS nailed the design with their new OM-3... as a film photographer I guess that is not a surprising opinion of mine lol :,D
I feel like I used some of this philosophy into my decision to leave Full Frame for APS-C again. I love my Panasonic S5ii but decided to go for a Fuji X-H2S recently. Sacrificing the "Full Frame Look" and possible low light capabilities for a faster sensor and better video specs was worth the trade-off. As someone who's used nearly every brand at one point (yes, even Pentax), the best all-rounder brands are now Panasonic (S+G) and Fujifilm. Panasonic for specs per buck and IBIS - Fuji for more photo based ergonomics and the "middle ground" sensor.
Little correction cause I hear tons of people make this mistake. Micro Four Thirds sensors aren't half the size of full frame, they're closer to 1/4th the size, the reason they aren't exactly a fourth the size is because of the difference in aspect ratio. This confusion stems from conflating crop factor with the area of the sensor, remember that for 4 sided polygons the formula for area is side times side, crop factor applies to a single dimension of the sensor, which means that by the same logic the difference in area will be crop factor squared (assuming the same aspect ratio). I hope that was kinda clear, I'm not very good with maths so I struggle a bit to explain it. Anyways cool video :)
Agreed. The comparison shouldn’t just be the width dimension, but instead the total area (width x height) of the sensor. When you compare the surface area of each sensor, you correctly see that it’s ~1/4 the size (area).
Thanks for the additional info and correction! I didn't want to go too in-depth and technical in the video, because I wanted to keep my focus on the actual use cases of M43. Though you've pointed out to me, that I could have done a bit of a better job than simply saying "around half the size", thanks! :)
Got a G9 lately very cheap. I love it. It's a big camera but that suits my hands, and combined with the Pana 14-140 it's a small package for a weather-sealed 28-280 FF equivalent. Using Cinelike-V for jpegs and loving that too 🧡
Hi Teo! Great review and hands on use of the camera in the wild. Only wish they did a tilt screen other than that it is a nice camera. Price wise it is a bit more than I expected, but inline with prices today! Great shots! Thanks for sharing!
Not gear related but I love your color grading and also how you blend the background music with your voice in this video. The lowpass-fade is a great way to move the music to the background. Kudos!
MFT is cool and all, but for me apsc was the perfect middle ground. Sony's apsc and even full frame cameras are really small and still pack big sensors. Been really happy with my a6700. The autofocus is super good! And with apsc you get a little bit more bokeh than MFT, if that is what you like. Anyways, you cant really go wrong with any mirrorless camera if you just do your research and know what you are buying.
mft is great system. I use mainly my Lumix G80 for almost two years and i can not be happier. It is small, light, cheap and has good foto and video outcome. I use my G80 as main photo and video body and it handle everything so good. I will switch to fullframe but mft is great starting point for everybody.
Excellent video. Marvelously produced with vibrant colors and a convincing message. Couldn’t agree more with its arguments and conclusions: m43 is relevant and addresses my needs as a photographer with technologies that are always at the forefront of what’s available elsewhere. This in spite of the higher IQ larger sensors can produce. What m43 gives us more than compensates for my needs.
I buy up as many BMPCC4K's second hand as I can. Will be filming on these beauties with the m4/3 gems of lenses for the coming decades to come. Its like a croc or a shark. Its ready evolving. Its perfect the way it is and can compete with all the new animals without a problem.
Great video! I think the rear display and viewfinder quality are subpar for the price OM is asking for it. Plus I'm only interested in rangefinders, which we'll likely never see made again. I will continue my m43 rangefinder buying spree off of the used market, but prices are getting out of hand.
Convenience trumps everything and M43 has that in spades. I don't ever see myself lugging around 5kg of full frame camera gear just so i can have bragging rights for the pixel peepers... instead, I get to bring my camera everywhere I go and make use of it because the size allows me too. Goodbye Full Frame & APS-C... after 20 years, it's been nice knowing you. That said, Olympus 12-100mm f/4 IS Pro is the holy grail of travel / jack-of-all-trades & master of image stabilization lenses.
I miss my pen-f 😢 have a look at the 40-150 2.8, that thing was an absolute beast and tiny in comparison to ff lenses! I think the only thing speaking against crop sensors is that i can't use my vintage lenses well.
Yeah. Exactly. Crop factor FF MFT = 2x! MFT 100mm = FF 200mm. Area = 3.8x. But those numbers are not so important in real world! The Crop / area discussion is silly!!
@@TITAOSTEIN why should you? FF is literally 4 times the surface area. That's 4 times as big, not double. Crop factor only matters for DOF calculations.
The sensor is a quarter the surface area of full frame, which is the relevant dimension rather than length. I still like M4/3. I haven't really found a full frame camera and zoom lens set up with a reasonable f-stop at the same carry-everywhere size as M4/3. That's even at relatively wide angles. Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough. The size advantage for M4/3 at telephoto lengths is much greater, as you say. Hiking with full frame telephoto lenses is just not worth it, in my view. Yes, low light performance is better for full frame, and I do have a full-frame camera for, say, night street photography. But, tbh, a lot of the talk about dynamic range and lifting the shadows is overdone unless you really like those fake looking HDR pics. For indoor sports and action, yes, probably full frame is what you need if you don't mind the weight or using a monopod.
The oly 12-100 for example isn’t that different in size and weight to the full frame 24-200 lenses going around. I’m not convinced the size advantage is all that. I have the oly 100-400 f/6.3 but don’t have a 200-800 f/13 to compare it to. The 150-400 f/4.5 isn’t that much lighter than canon’s 200-800 f/9 etc.
I carry a Canon R6 and an old Olympus EM-5 Mark III (as a backup) on my photo/video shoots. More often than not the Olympus is superior with video and just as good with photos. And AI photo tools pretty much levels the playing field as far as low light performance is concerned.
*common misconception: MFT is not "half the size" of FF The DIAGONAL is half the length, so the crop factor is equal to 2 - this is relevant for comparing focal lengths and aperture diameter / depth of field. The SIZE (area) of a full-frame sensor is actually 3.8x the size of an MFT sensor.
One of the key advantage of M43 over those full frame system: high quality lens at the way cheaper price. The price of one nice Nikon / Sony 85mm F1.4 prime lens equals to two or three 42.5 / 1.2 Pana-leica prime
Gotta point out the elephant in the room that you spent the least time on, the price. Been using Lumix and Oly since 2013 and love M4/3. People can blame inflation or whatever they want, but when there are amazing full frame cameras selling new under $2k like my S5IIX, there's no justification for any M4/3 camera to be above $1500. The OM-3 looks promising (aside from that awful logo and branding), and I'd swear it has the same shutter as my EM5 MKII, but the G9II is twice the camera for less money, and it has the game changing real time LUT feature that can get you virtually any look you'd ever want. Your GX80 is really the pinnacle of M4/3 and the used prices on them are a steal. I really hope OM will start pricing more competitively because the market is not growing anymore and I'm afraid they are not offering enough to compete with their peers, especially at that price point. Great video as always!
The people who buy new cameras are not the same people as people who buy used cameras. Used will always be cheaper, and we're long past the point of old used cameras and lenses being "good enough" for casual use. I don't know who the OM3 is for. It's not me, and that's fine, but it definitely has people falling in love with it, so it's clearly for someone.
@@minifig404 correct and that's my point about the industry shrinking. If not for "planned obsolescence" the smart phone industry would be the same way. They've taken a huge chunk out of the casual market, and the OM3 is a very similar camera to the Lumix S9 in which it's competing with smart phones. I'm sure it will sell, but considering Olympus sold out specifically because of the market share being so small, I can't see this being a success for them at nearly $2000. It's an influencer camera at best, like the X100 from Fuji (although that camera actually does sell well). And to your point about people falling in love with it, I actually have not seen a single person on TH-cam who has bought this camera. It's only influencers who have been sent it to make glorified commercials for it, just like the S9. I wouldn't speak for him, but I highly doubt Teo is considering buying an OM-3. The camera body uses the same viewfinder parts, buttons, and dials as my EM5II, a camera that's now 10 years old. There's no reason for it to cost that much. Thankfully older cameras are not obsolete and don't require new firmware to function so as long as they are taken care of, they'll last for decades. The Megapixel rush is what really did these companies in. But it's left us with some amazing cameras to choose from on the used market.
Hey Teo - nice video. I like reviews like this that have lots of practical photography in them. I don't think M43 has much of a benefit as far as price is concerned now - the OM3 + 17mm f1.8 II would cost me $2500 USD to buy brand new and for just $2700 you could get an a7iv + 35mm 1.8 or z6iii + 35mm 1.8. Or even save money on an apsc system like an xt50 + 23mm f2 for around $1900. All of those options are more megapixels, bigger sensors, and comparably priced (or cheaper!). I say this as someone who had an om-1 for a while, and ended up selling it to get a comparable fujifilm system for less money that I could sell the om-1 setup for. Not to say the om-3 is a bad camera at all, or that megapixels or sensor size mean everything, I'm sure the om-3 is the right camera for a lot of people! Just that there may be more cost effective ways to spend the pretty high price that this setup demands
MFT is mainly for casual and enthusiast photographers. So weight and size always come up as a reason to use MFT and I get that, why carry heavier gear to shoot on your holiday or some wildlife out for a hike. That's the market, so it will probably still do quite well.
In Jan 2025, I was lucky to buy lumix g9 like new full box with 5k shots for only 500$ and I am happy with it from image quality to video recording ability.
The deeper depth of field (DOF) of M43 is often an advantage: I've read that F5.6 on M43 is equivalent to F11 on FF. Imagine you're photographing a landscape hand-held in low-light. You got to close down the aperture a lot more on FF to get the same DOF as on M43. Being able to increase the ISO more on FF compensates. This, combined with smaller long lenses makes M43 my sensor of choice.
Is it an advantage to shoot at f/5.6 on m43 vs f/11 on full frame? Getting exactly the same DoF doesn’t sound like an advantage. Smaller long lenses are also less apparent when you adjust for aperture, e.g. comparing a 400mm f/5.6 with an 800mm f/11 or the 150-400 f/4.5 with a 300-800 f/9. Canon rf has a slightly longer range and is slightly heavier as a result.
@12symmo I'll stick with the first question. My statement was about depth of field. Landscape: you often want as much as possible in focus - in FF I would need to use F11 to get same DoF as with F5.6 on M43. As already said, this is a huge advantage in hand-held low light situations. (Re the rest of your comment, I think you misunderstood my post.)
@@sdrtcacgnrjrc but you could just jack the iso up two stops on the full frame camera and get the same noise as m43 at the lower iso. Granted you’ll possibly have better IS on m43, I don’t have a very modern ff or m43 body to compare. But IS aside, ff can do the same as m43.
@12symmo I also said that above :-/ It makes them more equal in this situation [EDIT: although I prefer to expose properly without putting iso too high no matter what system]. So I choose m43 for the smaller format & lenses
Why does everyone keep saying a 135 format sensor is twice as large as a MFT sensor? It's wrong. Here's the math: 24mm * 36mm = 864 mm squared 18mm * 13.5mm = 243 mm squared 864 divided by 243 is 3.556, rounded to the third decimal. --> A 135 format sensor is more than 3.5 times larger than a MFT sensor.
8:48 "tend to be". Not true for the OM3. At the moment, a new Nikon Zf can be bought with the Nikkor 40mm f2 for the same asking price of just the OM3 body. USD2,000 for the OM3 is a steep asking price. 12:04 The OM3 has 80MP 14 bit RAW files with high res mode on a tripod. For fairly static subject matter and a scene you want to capture in high detail, the OM3 can compete with most high res full frame cameras. And you can keep the shutter speed fairly high too with high ISO without much noise, as the noise gets evened out by the eight exposures the camera combines. You can get away with faster shutter speed and cleaner files compared to full frame that way.
I do agree that MFT cameras are generally cheaper than Full Frame equivalents... however in the OM-3's case that's really something that is hard to see. THis camera is marketed as a "smaller, everyday carry" camera, but is still sold at $2000, which is the price of a lot of full frame cameras nowadays. SUre, it has a stacked sensor, sure, it can shoot incredibly fast, but as much as that makes sense in cameras like the OM-1 series, which are more rugged, built for action and stuff, the OM-3 simply feels... overkill for the target demographic. A used, older MFT camera, or something more current like the OM-5? Sure. The OM-3 really is an OM-1ii inside a smaller body, with substantial compromises like the lack of grip, no second SD card, super low end EVF for the pricepoint, etc. For that price in full frame world you can get something like a Nikon Zf, which sure, will not be as fast shooting, but will give you a better EVF, similar autofocus, better image quality, similar IBIS (full frame really has come a long way in that regard), and dual card slots. I'm not saying the OM-3 is a bad camera. It's an excellent camera. But in my opinion OMDS tried to fit too many things in that thing, which increased the price beyond what the camera could actually chew. For 2000 bucks, I don't know a lot of people that wouldn't weigh the for and against of MFT and full frame bodies. And the worst part is that if you end up going for a Sony A7CII or Nikon Zf instead... both of those systems have great telephoto lenses which... can actually be cheaper and sometimes lighter than some MFT lenses, especially if you take in account quantity of light gathered. In short, I feel like if the OM-3 had dropped the stacked sensor, and replaced it by the non stacked sensor of the OM-5, keeping everything else identical, but lowering the price to like $1600, it would have been an absolute banger of a camera that would have competed very well with other similarly priced offereings. But right now, I feel like it's too expensive to appeal to the people that want a nice every day carry, and it's also not ergonomic enough and has too many compromises compared to the OM-1ii for people that are serious about wildlife and outdoor work (not mentionning the original OM-1, which is like 95% of what the OM-1ii is (it's basically the same camera with slightly less RAM) can be found used for... half the price of what the OM-3 sells for. With basically the same capabiltiies, same sensor, same burst rate, better IBIS, better ergos, better EVF,... the list is long). For the price of a single OM-3, you could buy... an OM-5 for everyday carry, and an OM-1 for everything else, and you would most likely have money left to spare too (a used OM-1 goes for about $1000, a used OM-5 for maybe $700, compared to a brand new $2000 OM-3). We'll see how this camera sells and how the used market reacts to the arrival of this new body, but I feel like OMDS missed the mark on that release. Also, about the IBIS part : the longer your focal length gets, the less effective IBIS is, and the more that camera relies on opical stabilization in the lens. IBIS does practically nothing in super telephoto ranges.
It's a bit expensive but only a little bit. It's £1700 here and I think it's worth £1500 easily in today's market. You can't judge a camera just by the size of the sensor. There's a reason an OM1 ii is more than an R8. And there's a reason a Z9 is double the price of a Z6ii.
@@letni9506 I don't judge the camse by the size of its sensor. I judge it with the pricepoint and the target demographic that would buy it. People that want a smaller camera for street and travel don't need the specs of the OM-3, nor are they looking for a $2000 camera. And people that want those specs for action, generally want a camera that is a little better suited for this genre. The result is a really small window when it comes to the market : people that have 2000 dollars to spend on a camera like this, that also are interested in the specs, and can't use something larger (or even slightly larger, like a Fujifilm X-T5) and won't decide a larger sensor (even if it's APS-C) is worth it, even if it's cheaper. I can see some people being in that category, but I doubt people interested by the OM-3 are numerous enough for that camera to become a commercial hit (which is what OM Systems needs...)
Lots of good points here 👍🏼 I love the idea of OM/ Olympus cameras but keep going back to Panasonic. Partly because of Olympus's dodgy menus, although they have apparently fixed that in OM1 mkii and in this camera (unfortunately not in the OM5). The G9ii with better dynamic range is tempting (I have a G9 myself - a wonderful camera that can be bought used here for under 500 euros at the moment). The OM1 mkii is the best affordable camera for wildlife (unless you're willing to spend whatever the top of the line from Sony costs - over 6k I think...) and for macro. I enjoy being able to shoot wildlife fairly casually with M43, but find even the relatively basic G9 auto-focus usually does the job (for my needs). I'm wary of people who go straight to the full frame recommendation. Mainly because there's pros and cons to both systems. (I can expand on this if you want.) Someone giving as example recently that the Sony G lenses are getting smaller - but the longer lenses are still much bigger (and much more expensive) than M43 equivalents in quality and length. If I only shot with shorter lenses that advantage of M43 would not be particularly relevant - and I would definitely be considering something FF.
The sensor from the OM-5 is borrowed from the E-M5 mk III. Not a good look for a $1000+ camera. Corners were cut, and aside from the EVF resolution, they make sense to me. People who are price sensitive absolutely won't buy this camera, but they weren't going to anyway. There's too many good options among used cameras. Sure, it would be nice to see the non lens pricing a bit lower for more distance from the OM-1 mk II, but it didn't happen, and I don't think they're going to be hurting for sales on this one. Or, given how fast they turned the OM-1 mk II around, they'll adjust the price of the sales don't turn out how they hoped.
Oh, excuse me, missed a detail. The OM-1 mk 1 is being sold at a loss to clear inventory. There's no way they're going to keep it around long term, given the OM-1 mk II.
With each Olympus /OM System I bought I thought "Wow! That is a lot of money for that camera!". And each time, after using it for a while. I think it is totally worth it. It probably won't win you over but those cameras are worth it because of the built quality, ergonomics, weather sealing, IBIS, (computational) features and the image quality, just to name a few. Don't know if you already did, but otherwise give it a go and try it.
M in MFT stands for micro. By 2025 here is no new micro cameras. Instead of Pen F II, OM pushed something bigger than E-M5 with same old EVF for uncompetitive price.
Kinda annoying: look, this is my my gx80+20mm, see how small it is comparing to s5+35. Well, try to compare these: panasonic g9 ii +17mm f1.8 vs a7c + samyang 35mm f1.8
Well, it kind of is, if we're talking about equivalent exposure. But if you mean equivalent depth of field / aperture diameter / amount of light collected by the sensor, then no.
@ no, equivalence is measured by the lens camera system. The sensor being a quarter of the size means you get one quarter of the light. Of course the actual aperture of the lens remains the same, as does the physical focal length. By taking light from a much smaller area, you are creating the illusion of a longer focal length, and also creating an image based on 75% less light. Hence a m43 camera at ISO 200 is equivalent to a FF camera somewhere between ISO 640 and 800, so for truly equivalent framing and noise, you would need to adjust the aperture and shoot the full frame system at two stops higher ISO. Try it if you want and see. People who buy this m43 marketing nonsense are the same ppl who thought EVs would replace petrol vehicles by now.
@@12symmo Yeah, sure, I really do understand it. If you're using the same lens and settings on both cameras, you're just cropping the image with MFT. It just depends on what "equivalence" you want to achieve. If you want to achieve the same framing and exposure (sensitivity, shutter speed and f-stop) then you'll use double the focal length. And if you want to achieve the same depth of field (and amount of light gathered by the sensor) then, besides double the focal length, you'll also need to double the f-stop on FF and then adjust the speed or ISO to get the same brightness (or you can for example use a FF lens with a speed booster on MFT). (It's interesting how many people are arguing about the crop factor in the comments here. 😅)
![TIMETHAI - ไม่อยากให้เป็นเขา (Why tho?) [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/o2qYlGVVtOw/mqdefault.jpg)
Hello, I hope you enjoy this little mix of gear-breakdown and snowy adventures! :D
Thank you so much to OM System for letting me try out their new OM-3. Check out further details of this lovely and secretly beastly camera here: serv.linkster.co/r/lPkW7SXdqg
Wishing you a lovely week!
Teo, my first ever camera was also a GX80 courtesy of your TH-cam videos from a while back! I loved that camera so much but recently switched to film photography so had to sell to afford more film….but this has made me want to potentially pick one up again! Continue to inspire! 📸🫡
A new teo crawford video, just as i sit for dinner
Luck is in favour
totally awesome sauce dude
@@kausthita11 Gahhh perfect😮💨 Have a good dinner!🫶
I’m a fan of aps-c because of the benefits of smaller sensors. This video is selling me on even smaller sensors!
I absolutely love the way OM systems is going with their designs, Olympus has rich history in camera design that blended aesthetics with functionality, why not borrow some of that? I would absolutely LOVE to see them recreate an Olympus XA like they did to this om-3
Yeah xa, wouldn't that be amazing 🤩!
Thanks for this excellent video. Marvelously produced with vibrant colors and a convincing message. Couldn’t agree more with its arguments and conclusions: m43 is still relevant and addresses my needs as a photographer with technologies that are always at the forefront of what’s available elsewhere. This in spite of the higher IQ larger sensors can produce (I have a Nikon D780 and there is a clear advantage in low light-but it’s so heavy I barely use it). What m43 gives us more than compensates for my needs. That’s why I’ve been a devoted user since 2008 when I got the e510 and now I rely on the superb OM-1 Mk II. This year I preordered my new OM-3 after trying it out at the launch event in Tokyo. It was love at first sight!
Best video on the new OM-3 so far - great job
i started photography with a canon 600d in 2018. after some time i kinda stopped, but last year i bought the gx80 and im so back into it, its crazy. i love the small size and the more classic style of the mft cameras. plus (from a student pov) the prizes are just insane. most of the gear i own cost around 200 to 300€ used. for everyone that want to do this as a hobby i can highly recommend these cameras.
btw i really love the style of ur videos ^^ thanks for ur work
As someone who shoots FF and m 4/3's. I feel M 4/3 is absolutely worth it in 2025. People focus on the wrong things IMO. I have the A7IV and OM-1. My Sony next to my OM is boring. Yes it has 33mp, yes it's FF. But it has zero computational features. Lenses are expensive and heavy as hell. I just sold my 35-150 Friday because the A7IV FPS is crippled with it. 6fp, same as the OM-3. Electronic shutter is junk, rolling shutter on moving subjects is horrendous. Auto white balance is garbage. FF is not for everyone. To get equal FF gear. = as in quality, weather sealing, aperture. M 4/3 is much better for most people. Sadly they don't know it because they will never give it a chance.
Exactly👍
Yeah, thanks for the comment. I also sometimes feel like people just block out M4/3 as a system because they falsely think that it's subpar for some reason. I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one who think the system is totally worth it even now :)
My Lumix G85 (MFT of course) holds a special place in my heart. Absolutely wonderful travel camera. Lovely video Teo.
Same. I’ve always said, if they just added phase detect on the g85, I’d be so content 😅
The M43 is an ideal format for travel, nature and just anywhere you'd want to keep the size and weight of your gear down.
I shoot on full frame, APSC and M43 with multiple brands, but I nearly always revert to M43 because of the form factor.... Having said that, my Canon M system kit gives it a run for its money apart from the increased reach from the 2x crop of M43.
Agreed... My A7CR is sitting more and more these days now that I have invested in a few good M43 lenses. The GM1 is about as close to a phone replacement as we will get. With modern noise reduction, the gap is bridged even more.
I've found MFT excellent for my causal style of shooting, haven't touched my DSLR since I got my MFT. Despite being from 2014, with a smaller sensor and the fact that I edit JPEGs, a few people have been really surprised with the results I've been able to get with it, it's also really compact and that's great. I think too much people sweat it too much when it comes to photography.
The most important thing for me has to be how good it looks. It's so classy
Mhmm good, and often underestimated, point! I totally forgot to further elaborate on this in the video, but I guess it's long enough already haha. But a good looking camera can be such an underrated advantage, because it'll inspire you and lead to you shooting more than if you had a boring or (dare I say) ugly camera. I think OMS nailed the design with their new OM-3... as a film photographer I guess that is not a surprising opinion of mine lol :,D
I feel like I used some of this philosophy into my decision to leave Full Frame for APS-C again. I love my Panasonic S5ii but decided to go for a Fuji X-H2S recently. Sacrificing the "Full Frame Look" and possible low light capabilities for a faster sensor and better video specs was worth the trade-off. As someone who's used nearly every brand at one point (yes, even Pentax), the best all-rounder brands are now Panasonic (S+G) and Fujifilm. Panasonic for specs per buck and IBIS - Fuji for more photo based ergonomics and the "middle ground" sensor.
Little correction cause I hear tons of people make this mistake. Micro Four Thirds sensors aren't half the size of full frame, they're closer to 1/4th the size, the reason they aren't exactly a fourth the size is because of the difference in aspect ratio. This confusion stems from conflating crop factor with the area of the sensor, remember that for 4 sided polygons the formula for area is side times side, crop factor applies to a single dimension of the sensor, which means that by the same logic the difference in area will be crop factor squared (assuming the same aspect ratio).
I hope that was kinda clear, I'm not very good with maths so I struggle a bit to explain it. Anyways cool video :)
Agreed. The comparison shouldn’t just be the width dimension, but instead the total area (width x height) of the sensor. When you compare the surface area of each sensor, you correctly see that it’s ~1/4 the size (area).
Thanks for the additional info and correction! I didn't want to go too in-depth and technical in the video, because I wanted to keep my focus on the actual use cases of M43. Though you've pointed out to me, that I could have done a bit of a better job than simply saying "around half the size", thanks! :)
Thanks Teo. Been using a G9 usually with a 12-100 Oly f4 for years. If you can’t take great photos with this setup, different gear won’t help you!
Got a G9 lately very cheap. I love it. It's a big camera but that suits my hands, and combined with the Pana 14-140 it's a small package for a weather-sealed 28-280 FF equivalent. Using Cinelike-V for jpegs and loving that too 🧡
The G9 is wonderful. I'm considering the upgrade to the G9ii at some point, but not sure if it is worth it...
Answer is qualified yes, with all the usual caveats: "If you're the right person, if it fits your needs, etc."
Pleasant surprise! I was not expecting this video
Hi Teo! Great review and hands on use of the camera in the wild. Only wish they did a tilt screen other than that it is a nice camera. Price wise it is a bit more than I expected, but inline with prices today! Great shots! Thanks for sharing!
Not gear related but I love your color grading and also how you blend the background music with your voice in this video. The lowpass-fade is a great way to move the music to the background. Kudos!
Wow- that intro was dazzling 🎉
This is exactly the video I was looking for. Thank you!
Great video production and well presented in a logical and interesting manner. Thank you Teo.
High ISO performance has leveled the playing field overall. MFT is worth it if manufacturers create compelling options for the format.
MFT is cool and all, but for me apsc was the perfect middle ground.
Sony's apsc and even full frame cameras are really small and still pack big sensors.
Been really happy with my a6700. The autofocus is super good!
And with apsc you get a little bit more bokeh than MFT, if that is what you like.
Anyways, you cant really go wrong with any mirrorless camera if you just do your research and know what you are buying.
mft is great system. I use mainly my Lumix G80 for almost two years and i can not be happier. It is small, light, cheap and has good foto and video outcome. I use my G80 as main photo and video body and it handle everything so good. I will switch to fullframe but mft is great starting point for everybody.
Wow, I really like the test shoot jpegs!
Excellent video. Marvelously produced with vibrant colors and a convincing message. Couldn’t agree more with its arguments and conclusions: m43 is relevant and addresses my needs as a photographer with technologies that are always at the forefront of what’s available elsewhere. This in spite of the higher IQ larger sensors can produce. What m43 gives us more than compensates for my needs.
I buy up as many BMPCC4K's second hand as I can.
Will be filming on these beauties with the m4/3 gems of lenses for the coming decades to come.
Its like a croc or a shark.
Its ready evolving. Its perfect the way it is and can compete with all the new animals without a problem.
Great video! I think the rear display and viewfinder quality are subpar for the price OM is asking for it. Plus I'm only interested in rangefinders, which we'll likely never see made again. I will continue my m43 rangefinder buying spree off of the used market, but prices are getting out of hand.
Convenience trumps everything and M43 has that in spades. I don't ever see myself lugging around 5kg of full frame camera gear just so i can have bragging rights for the pixel peepers... instead, I get to bring my camera everywhere I go and make use of it because the size allows me too. Goodbye Full Frame & APS-C... after 20 years, it's been nice knowing you. That said, Olympus 12-100mm f/4 IS Pro is the holy grail of travel / jack-of-all-trades & master of image stabilization lenses.
I miss my pen-f 😢 have a look at the 40-150 2.8, that thing was an absolute beast and tiny in comparison to ff lenses!
I think the only thing speaking against crop sensors is that i can't use my vintage lenses well.
Yes but not at that price.
Gh6 cost 1000 euros with a 25mm 1.7, it’s an insane price point
when you add in the price of the lenses, still cheaper though.
why not?!Sony also costs 6000,7000 euros😅
@@mrlau630 Sony having mft cameras is news to me
Can you read bro? @nk__
Love MFT
I would love to see your thoughts on the canon power shot g16! I love your work!
i buy gx85 because of your video and i like the result also the same lens
MFT sensor is 1/4 of full-frame in terms of area, isn’t it? You can multiply the dimensions for the area and compare them
You should measure the diagonal! 2x
@@TITAOSTEIN Yeah, but that's the crop factor. The "size" (= area) is about 3.8x smaller.
Yeah. Exactly. Crop factor FF MFT = 2x! MFT 100mm = FF 200mm. Area = 3.8x. But those numbers are not so important in real world! The Crop / area discussion is silly!!
@@TITAOSTEIN why should you? FF is literally 4 times the surface area. That's 4 times as big, not double. Crop factor only matters for DOF calculations.
@@LadyBovine You should because that's how you measure sensors and screens! The diagonal measurement is the standard measurement. It's that simple.
I love your voice!
Beautiful video
I was hoping you could get your hands on one of these!!
The sensor is a quarter the surface area of full frame, which is the relevant dimension rather than length. I still like M4/3. I haven't really found a full frame camera and zoom lens set up with a reasonable f-stop at the same carry-everywhere size as M4/3. That's even at relatively wide angles. Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough. The size advantage for M4/3 at telephoto lengths is much greater, as you say. Hiking with full frame telephoto lenses is just not worth it, in my view. Yes, low light performance is better for full frame, and I do have a full-frame camera for, say, night street photography. But, tbh, a lot of the talk about dynamic range and lifting the shadows is overdone unless you really like those fake looking HDR pics. For indoor sports and action, yes, probably full frame is what you need if you don't mind the weight or using a monopod.
The oly 12-100 for example isn’t that different in size and weight to the full frame 24-200 lenses going around. I’m not convinced the size advantage is all that. I have the oly 100-400 f/6.3 but don’t have a 200-800 f/13 to compare it to. The 150-400 f/4.5 isn’t that much lighter than canon’s 200-800 f/9 etc.
I carry a Canon R6 and an old Olympus EM-5 Mark III (as a backup) on my photo/video shoots. More often than not the Olympus is superior with video and just as good with photos. And AI photo tools pretty much levels the playing field as far as low light performance is concerned.
It’s 3.6 times smaller (area-wise) than full frame sensor, not twice. Even ASP-C is more than twice as small compared to full frame (2.6 times).
The elephant in the room is the rather low resolution viewfinder. I suppose there’s some logic to it.
I mean this as a compliment- you give the biggest 11th doctor who energy
It's the same price as the Nikon ZF. OM Systems are having a laugh
*common misconception: MFT is not "half the size" of FF
The DIAGONAL is half the length, so the crop factor is equal to 2 - this is relevant for comparing focal lengths and aperture diameter / depth of field.
The SIZE (area) of a full-frame sensor is actually 3.8x the size of an MFT sensor.
He got the price wrong as well, it is not much cheaper than a FF, actually this one is more expensive
@cristibaluta Yeah, well, depends if you're comparing if with, say, a Nikon Z5 + 40mm f/2 or a Canon R5 + 70-200mm f/2.8...
@@cristibaluta maybe I missed it (?) but I didn't hear him mentioning the price at all
@@sdrtcacgnrjrc He means the price difference between full-frame and MFT cameras/lenses, which is... debatable.
Another great misconception is that the focal length doubles but the aperture remains the same 😂
i would love to be able to use my vintage OM-System zuikos on an Olympus/OM mirrorless without any crop or speedboosters in my lifetime
Sold
how to color match video like your video
Yes, two cameras in one … like combining my old EM1ii and Pen-F with all new innards and better menus. 😎
One of the key advantage of M43 over those full frame system: high quality lens at the way cheaper price. The price of one nice Nikon / Sony 85mm F1.4 prime lens equals to two or three 42.5 / 1.2 Pana-leica prime
Gotta point out the elephant in the room that you spent the least time on, the price. Been using Lumix and Oly since 2013 and love M4/3. People can blame inflation or whatever they want, but when there are amazing full frame cameras selling new under $2k like my S5IIX, there's no justification for any M4/3 camera to be above $1500. The OM-3 looks promising (aside from that awful logo and branding), and I'd swear it has the same shutter as my EM5 MKII, but the G9II is twice the camera for less money, and it has the game changing real time LUT feature that can get you virtually any look you'd ever want. Your GX80 is really the pinnacle of M4/3 and the used prices on them are a steal. I really hope OM will start pricing more competitively because the market is not growing anymore and I'm afraid they are not offering enough to compete with their peers, especially at that price point. Great video as always!
The people who buy new cameras are not the same people as people who buy used cameras. Used will always be cheaper, and we're long past the point of old used cameras and lenses being "good enough" for casual use.
I don't know who the OM3 is for. It's not me, and that's fine, but it definitely has people falling in love with it, so it's clearly for someone.
@@minifig404 correct and that's my point about the industry shrinking. If not for "planned obsolescence" the smart phone industry would be the same way. They've taken a huge chunk out of the casual market, and the OM3 is a very similar camera to the Lumix S9 in which it's competing with smart phones. I'm sure it will sell, but considering Olympus sold out specifically because of the market share being so small, I can't see this being a success for them at nearly $2000. It's an influencer camera at best, like the X100 from Fuji (although that camera actually does sell well). And to your point about people falling in love with it, I actually have not seen a single person on TH-cam who has bought this camera. It's only influencers who have been sent it to make glorified commercials for it, just like the S9. I wouldn't speak for him, but I highly doubt Teo is considering buying an OM-3.
The camera body uses the same viewfinder parts, buttons, and dials as my EM5II, a camera that's now 10 years old. There's no reason for it to cost that much. Thankfully older cameras are not obsolete and don't require new firmware to function so as long as they are taken care of, they'll last for decades. The Megapixel rush is what really did these companies in. But it's left us with some amazing cameras to choose from on the used market.
Hey Teo - nice video. I like reviews like this that have lots of practical photography in them.
I don't think M43 has much of a benefit as far as price is concerned now - the OM3 + 17mm f1.8 II would cost me $2500 USD to buy brand new and for just $2700 you could get an a7iv + 35mm 1.8 or z6iii + 35mm 1.8. Or even save money on an apsc system like an xt50 + 23mm f2 for around $1900. All of those options are more megapixels, bigger sensors, and comparably priced (or cheaper!). I say this as someone who had an om-1 for a while, and ended up selling it to get a comparable fujifilm system for less money that I could sell the om-1 setup for.
Not to say the om-3 is a bad camera at all, or that megapixels or sensor size mean everything, I'm sure the om-3 is the right camera for a lot of people! Just that there may be more cost effective ways to spend the pretty high price that this setup demands
personally my favourite lens is a 28mm which i adapt to my micro four third sensor, i hate any focal length below 50mm so it works out for me!
Even his handwriting looks asthetic 😭🙏
@SilasMiller-s6u Wait WHAT!? No way, my handwriting is sooo ugly hahahaha especially in this video it’s pretty wonky😭😂😂
@@teocrawfordregardless, apparently men generally have worse handwriting than women but you're deffo better than most guys
@teocrawford nah man it just has a nice flow to it
How do you process your audio? I have the same mic, but it doesn’t sound this creamy. 😂
As my friend who switched from M4/3 said “it’s a great camera system until you have to do anything in low light then it’s practically unusable”
What are lumix doing, why no compact mft releases from them ?
@@samtranchet As far as I know, they’ve sort of given up on M4/3 and are focusing more on their L-mount full frame cameras🤔
2000€ for a M43 is crazy for me
MFT is mainly for casual and enthusiast photographers.
So weight and size always come up as a reason to use MFT and I get that, why carry heavier gear to shoot on your holiday or some wildlife out for a hike.
That's the market, so it will probably still do quite well.
I'm swinging between a Lumix G7 and a Canon R100 for a while. Couldn't decide yet which should I go for 😅
Try to look into some second-hand options too. Used Lumix, Canon M, Fuji or Sony can be great value... 😉
@dominik.zemanek.97 Thank you so much for the suggestions 😁
Feels illegal to be this early
The lumix gh7 is another modern MFT camera that really punches above its weight
Nice video
In Jan 2025, I was lucky to buy lumix g9 like new full box with 5k shots for only 500$ and I am happy with it from image quality to video recording ability.
The deeper depth of field (DOF) of M43 is often an advantage: I've read that F5.6 on M43 is equivalent to F11 on FF. Imagine you're photographing a landscape hand-held in low-light. You got to close down the aperture a lot more on FF to get the same DOF as on M43. Being able to increase the ISO more on FF compensates. This, combined with smaller long lenses makes M43 my sensor of choice.
Is it an advantage to shoot at f/5.6 on m43 vs f/11 on full frame? Getting exactly the same DoF doesn’t sound like an advantage. Smaller long lenses are also less apparent when you adjust for aperture, e.g. comparing a 400mm f/5.6 with an 800mm f/11 or the 150-400 f/4.5 with a 300-800 f/9. Canon rf has a slightly longer range and is slightly heavier as a result.
@12symmo I'll stick with the first question. My statement was about depth of field. Landscape: you often want as much as possible in focus - in FF I would need to use F11 to get same DoF as with F5.6 on M43.
As already said, this is a huge advantage in hand-held low light situations.
(Re the rest of your comment, I think you misunderstood my post.)
@@sdrtcacgnrjrc but you could just jack the iso up two stops on the full frame camera and get the same noise as m43 at the lower iso. Granted you’ll possibly have better IS on m43, I don’t have a very modern ff or m43 body to compare. But IS aside, ff can do the same as m43.
@12symmo I also said that above :-/
It makes them more equal in this situation [EDIT: although I prefer to expose properly without putting iso too high no matter what system]. So I choose m43 for the smaller format & lenses
@@12symmo I don't understand your lens comparisons: what do you mean "adjusting for aperture" on long lenses?
Opening shot taken in Kühtai? 😛
Why does everyone keep saying a 135 format sensor is twice as large as a MFT sensor? It's wrong.
Here's the math:
24mm * 36mm = 864 mm squared
18mm * 13.5mm = 243 mm squared
864 divided by 243 is 3.556, rounded to the third decimal.
--> A 135 format sensor is more than 3.5 times larger than a MFT sensor.
Yeah, 2 is the crop factor. The difference in area is typically 23.8×35.6 vs 17.3×13, so 3.767× larger.
My answer: Yes
is it possible to get this camera in India. I am in desperate need of a new camera since my previous one broke, it was sony rx 100
8:48 "tend to be". Not true for the OM3. At the moment, a new Nikon Zf can be bought with the Nikkor 40mm f2 for the same asking price of just the OM3 body. USD2,000 for the OM3 is a steep asking price.
12:04 The OM3 has 80MP 14 bit RAW files with high res mode on a tripod. For fairly static subject matter and a scene you want to capture in high detail, the OM3 can compete with most high res full frame cameras. And you can keep the shutter speed fairly high too with high ISO without much noise, as the noise gets evened out by the eight exposures the camera combines. You can get away with faster shutter speed and cleaner files compared to full frame that way.
Welp, it's time to obsess over a new camera.😂
They’re not only worth it, they are preferable. I have a Sony FF but my Oly gets all the use these days.
So will you be changing your GX80 with the OM-3?
No, just buy buy apsc
But i don't have 2k to throw away😒
I do agree that MFT cameras are generally cheaper than Full Frame equivalents... however in the OM-3's case that's really something that is hard to see. THis camera is marketed as a "smaller, everyday carry" camera, but is still sold at $2000, which is the price of a lot of full frame cameras nowadays. SUre, it has a stacked sensor, sure, it can shoot incredibly fast, but as much as that makes sense in cameras like the OM-1 series, which are more rugged, built for action and stuff, the OM-3 simply feels... overkill for the target demographic. A used, older MFT camera, or something more current like the OM-5? Sure. The OM-3 really is an OM-1ii inside a smaller body, with substantial compromises like the lack of grip, no second SD card, super low end EVF for the pricepoint, etc. For that price in full frame world you can get something like a Nikon Zf, which sure, will not be as fast shooting, but will give you a better EVF, similar autofocus, better image quality, similar IBIS (full frame really has come a long way in that regard), and dual card slots.
I'm not saying the OM-3 is a bad camera. It's an excellent camera. But in my opinion OMDS tried to fit too many things in that thing, which increased the price beyond what the camera could actually chew. For 2000 bucks, I don't know a lot of people that wouldn't weigh the for and against of MFT and full frame bodies. And the worst part is that if you end up going for a Sony A7CII or Nikon Zf instead... both of those systems have great telephoto lenses which... can actually be cheaper and sometimes lighter than some MFT lenses, especially if you take in account quantity of light gathered.
In short, I feel like if the OM-3 had dropped the stacked sensor, and replaced it by the non stacked sensor of the OM-5, keeping everything else identical, but lowering the price to like $1600, it would have been an absolute banger of a camera that would have competed very well with other similarly priced offereings. But right now, I feel like it's too expensive to appeal to the people that want a nice every day carry, and it's also not ergonomic enough and has too many compromises compared to the OM-1ii for people that are serious about wildlife and outdoor work (not mentionning the original OM-1, which is like 95% of what the OM-1ii is (it's basically the same camera with slightly less RAM) can be found used for... half the price of what the OM-3 sells for. With basically the same capabiltiies, same sensor, same burst rate, better IBIS, better ergos, better EVF,... the list is long).
For the price of a single OM-3, you could buy... an OM-5 for everyday carry, and an OM-1 for everything else, and you would most likely have money left to spare too (a used OM-1 goes for about $1000, a used OM-5 for maybe $700, compared to a brand new $2000 OM-3). We'll see how this camera sells and how the used market reacts to the arrival of this new body, but I feel like OMDS missed the mark on that release.
Also, about the IBIS part : the longer your focal length gets, the less effective IBIS is, and the more that camera relies on opical stabilization in the lens. IBIS does practically nothing in super telephoto ranges.
It's a bit expensive but only a little bit. It's £1700 here and I think it's worth £1500 easily in today's market.
You can't judge a camera just by the size of the sensor.
There's a reason an OM1 ii is more than an R8.
And there's a reason a Z9 is double the price of a Z6ii.
@@letni9506 I don't judge the camse by the size of its sensor. I judge it with the pricepoint and the target demographic that would buy it.
People that want a smaller camera for street and travel don't need the specs of the OM-3, nor are they looking for a $2000 camera. And people that want those specs for action, generally want a camera that is a little better suited for this genre.
The result is a really small window when it comes to the market : people that have 2000 dollars to spend on a camera like this, that also are interested in the specs, and can't use something larger (or even slightly larger, like a Fujifilm X-T5) and won't decide a larger sensor (even if it's APS-C) is worth it, even if it's cheaper.
I can see some people being in that category, but I doubt people interested by the OM-3 are numerous enough for that camera to become a commercial hit (which is what OM Systems needs...)
Lots of good points here 👍🏼
I love the idea of OM/ Olympus cameras but keep going back to Panasonic. Partly because of Olympus's dodgy menus, although they have apparently fixed that in OM1 mkii and in this camera (unfortunately not in the OM5).
The G9ii with better dynamic range is tempting (I have a G9 myself - a wonderful camera that can be bought used here for under 500 euros at the moment).
The OM1 mkii is the best affordable camera for wildlife (unless you're willing to spend whatever the top of the line from Sony costs - over 6k I think...) and for macro. I enjoy being able to shoot wildlife fairly casually with M43, but find even the relatively basic G9 auto-focus usually does the job (for my needs).
I'm wary of people who go straight to the full frame recommendation. Mainly because there's pros and cons to both systems. (I can expand on this if you want.) Someone giving as example recently that the Sony G lenses are getting smaller - but the longer lenses are still much bigger (and much more expensive) than M43 equivalents in quality and length. If I only shot with shorter lenses that advantage of M43 would not be particularly relevant - and I would definitely be considering something FF.
The sensor from the OM-5 is borrowed from the E-M5 mk III. Not a good look for a $1000+ camera.
Corners were cut, and aside from the EVF resolution, they make sense to me.
People who are price sensitive absolutely won't buy this camera, but they weren't going to anyway. There's too many good options among used cameras.
Sure, it would be nice to see the non lens pricing a bit lower for more distance from the OM-1 mk II, but it didn't happen, and I don't think they're going to be hurting for sales on this one. Or, given how fast they turned the OM-1 mk II around, they'll adjust the price of the sales don't turn out how they hoped.
Oh, excuse me, missed a detail. The OM-1 mk 1 is being sold at a loss to clear inventory. There's no way they're going to keep it around long term, given the OM-1 mk II.
Gorgeous little camera and happy they’re still making them, but it doesn’t really make sense at 2k…
With each Olympus /OM System I bought I thought "Wow! That is a lot of money for that camera!". And each time, after using it for a while. I think it is totally worth it. It probably won't win you over but those cameras are worth it because of the built quality, ergonomics, weather sealing, IBIS, (computational) features and the image quality, just to name a few. Don't know if you already did, but otherwise give it a go and try it.
MFT is worth it, but not the OM3 at it's current price point.
Yes. But maybe not that one.
Noticed you managed to purchase the Panasonic S5 Mark 2 X.
M in MFT stands for micro. By 2025 here is no new micro cameras. Instead of Pen F II, OM pushed something bigger than E-M5 with same old EVF for uncompetitive price.
The Alps were Hitler's favorite mountains. Sad that you had to make such a video.
If Theo likes this video I’ll upload my first photography video.
Kinda annoying: look, this is my my gx80+20mm, see how small it is comparing to s5+35. Well, try to compare these: panasonic g9 ii +17mm f1.8 vs a7c + samyang 35mm f1.8
M43 user logic “400mm becomes 800mm”. Also m43 users “f/6.3 is still f/6.3”. 🤦♀️
It is.
Well, it kind of is, if we're talking about equivalent exposure. But if you mean equivalent depth of field / aperture diameter / amount of light collected by the sensor, then no.
@ no, equivalence is measured by the lens camera system. The sensor being a quarter of the size means you get one quarter of the light. Of course the actual aperture of the lens remains the same, as does the physical focal length. By taking light from a much smaller area, you are creating the illusion of a longer focal length, and also creating an image based on 75% less light. Hence a m43 camera at ISO 200 is equivalent to a FF camera somewhere between ISO 640 and 800, so for truly equivalent framing and noise, you would need to adjust the aperture and shoot the full frame system at two stops higher ISO. Try it if you want and see.
People who buy this m43 marketing nonsense are the same ppl who thought EVs would replace petrol vehicles by now.
@@12symmo Yeah, sure, I really do understand it. If you're using the same lens and settings on both cameras, you're just cropping the image with MFT. It just depends on what "equivalence" you want to achieve.
If you want to achieve the same framing and exposure (sensitivity, shutter speed and f-stop) then you'll use double the focal length.
And if you want to achieve the same depth of field (and amount of light gathered by the sensor) then, besides double the focal length, you'll also need to double the f-stop on FF and then adjust the speed or ISO to get the same brightness (or you can for example use a FF lens with a speed booster on MFT).
(It's interesting how many people are arguing about the crop factor in the comments here. 😅)
@ lol really? The crop factor is the most obvious part!
The ONLY advantage is the smaller size of camera and lenses. That's it.
First