5 Reasons to Choose Micro 4/3 over Full Frame 

@@MysticCaravan That comment adds nothing.

This is exactly correct. Ye cannae break the laws of physics. If you want that shallow depth, put the longer lens on and move back from the subject. DoF is also partly lens design. For many years top lens makers like Leica strived to get the sharpest images with deep depth. Now they want bokeh which you can get from a cheap lens. I've got a 400mm Tokina (adapted, all manual) that has about ½-inch DoF at 20 metres, useless for wildlife but great for astro. The adapted Sigma Bigma 50-500 "'for Olympus 4/3" has far better DoF. There are lens design factors. DoF is not solely lens length and aperture, but it is not sensor size.

yes. i stopped the video after i heared what he says about that. it's garbage.

yah, but the cost of a 25mm f0.9 is kind of high compared to a nifty fifty

I stopped the video and subscribed to your channel, bro.

Real filmmakers don’t blur the background like these wannabe “cinematic” dudes with a full-frame or aps-c filming wide open even in their bedroom filled with LED rgb lights 🙈🤦🏻‍♂️

Gh5s it's incredible camera for low light !!!!!!

The best camera is the one you're holding. It's what you do with it. I generally stuff an E-PL7 with a GX PZ14-42 in my pocket but an still happy shooting film.

I had a fukn camcorder. Colors are so ugly. Have to color correct the footage for hours. I never got natural colors. Now I got the BMPCC4K. I can now even publish without even touching the colors. Natural looking. Good details of my shot. Even the 4K footage can be edited without a lag on my computer. Ooof.. Ok.. Not the camera.. I'm the one to blame..!

This statement has been debunked so many times. You just can't get the same results from a 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 as you can from a 85mm f/1.2. Once the creator's abilities outperform the camera's functionality, gear makes a significant difference.

Thanks for sharing! I love to hear that! More content coming soon

The Essential Tomodachi I got a g7... too glad I did

Ahaha right on, brother. It took me a while, but I'm ready for the 4/3 revolution aha

Philippe Orlando *was gonna make a similar comment.. this is what happens when camera nerds wise up and think about practicality.

Ahaha, it took me a while. I used to shame the GH5 and say it was crap because it couldn't do good low light. Then the GH5s came out and I didn't really care because the A7S ii was still better. Then I realized how much more valuable 4k at 60fps, 10-bit 422, good IBIS, and all the other features the GH5 has to offer for way cheaper than the Sony cameras are. Well, I actually have a surprise, I'll be revealing it soon 😋

Even in photography. I was going through some national geographic and Time collection photo books and realize how much there is a lack of the super bokeh that everyone is so hyped about now days. As if an image does not have bokeh, than it is not that great or could be better. Don't get me wrong, many lenses ion the old days did not have as wide apertures as they do now, but looking at the images you still never feel that the images lack anything.

@@HuntaDaKilla I totally agree. Shallow Bokeh =/= good images.

Amen Mark!! I was just thinking this today and was on the fence for which Z-Cam to get the e2 or the MFT. How is it for anamorphic support?

Awesome! Glad to hear from you Joseph. I agree, MFT rocks

Solid points!

Ok, I feel better now, I just bought a Canon sx740 with a 1 2/3" sensor 40x optical zoom and I find it takes beautiful picts, my friend keeps on telling me it is not as good as his Sony point and shot also but with a 1 inch sensor, I tell him yeah but you dont have 40x optical zoom, lol and same thing with the bikes, I ride road bike and have an aluminum bike but some people spend thousands on a carbon because it weighs less, the difference? 5 pounds less maybe, so I tell them just loose 5 pounds and save the extra money!

Yeah that may be true now, but when canon catches up on sensor tech they will blow sony/panasonic out of the water. Physics dictates that a larger sensor size at the same resolution is going to provide more photons per pixel and thus better image quality.

Canon is also coming out with a TINY full frame body soon. They're not using crop sensors at all anymore from here on out.

@@LarsLarsen77 The body size doesn't matter much because full-frame optics will still have to be large and a big sensor brings battery life, overheating worries, and annoying shallow focus depths by default.

What are they?

Thanks for sharing! Yeah, low light can be a hassle. The GH5s is great for low light video, but only has 10MP, which really isn't gonna work for photography aha.

Great video Tom but I beg to differ, 10Mp is enough for vast majority of still requirements, there’s loads of great images lower than 10Mp and even magazine covers in the early digital days were shot with 2Mp cameras. We’re simply being sold mega pixels because of the bigger is better mentality, that’s the only way FF manufacturers can market their systems as supposedly better. 40+Mp cameras are beyond good enough, simple fact is 10Mp is enough. M43 tech is good enough for Pro applications, it’s an amazing feature packed system and can only get better

@@alexreay4164 Hey Alex. You're right, 10MP is technically enough, but for me I'd say it's not. In my experience I find that 18MP+ is what I like to work with. I like being able to crop in without worrying about how much I have to work with, and I find that things just look more crisp at 24MP or higher. I agree, If you're shooting for the web or Instagram or whatever, 10MP works fine, but if you're printing for billboards or even large canvases, I'd much rather have a higher MP count.

@@alexreay4164 Thanks for sharing! I wanted to learn photography. So I got a used Sony A7s2. Then lens I got with it was damaged. I thought buying a zoom lens would help me practice diversely with different focal lengths. Bought the Tamron 24-70 f2.8. The thing is I don't keep my camera with me. I should have got a fixed focal length lens (which would have also been smaller) and a smaller camera so that I can keep this handy with me always. I need to practice more and more. The setup I have currently I just don't carry with me. Keeping in mind I want to click pictures in low light during evening and night after office, please share some suggestions for a body and lens to have with me everyday.

Get a tripod collar for the lens if it doesn't already have one. The weight needs to be distributed evenly.

I hear really great things about the G9. 4k at 60fps for under $1500!

@@WhatAboutTom I have the G9 and it's great. In fact, I just switched from a Nikon d500 and do almost entirely stills with it. Couldn't be happier.

@@BrentODell Damn! Good to know! Even at micro four thirds huh?

@@WhatAboutTom The noise gets pretty bad above iso 3200, and I limit myself to 6400 when using auto iso. My only other complaint is trouble focusing on a smaller subject with strong backlighting, it hunts a bit. Other than that, it's great. The stabilization is insane; hand-held at 300mm(600mm equivalent) and 1/40th sec, and I don't have particularly steady hands.

@@BrentODell That's crazy aha. 600mm? Wtf lol. I expect bad low light with MFT tho, so that makes sense.

Andrez Agree!! I love it more than my d3300

Everyone knows that, but effectively is cheaper to use a 50mm f1.8 on a full frame than a ~25mm f0.9 on a MFT. Do they even make f0.9 lens?

f1.8 lens for 135 format and f1.8 lens for M4/3 format gather same amount of light per unit area, and nothing about the exposure triangle changes because exposure meters tells the same reading, regardless of format. Lenses with 'wider' aperture / larger front elements are made primarily for gathering more light in challenging environments. DoF effect they create at such wide apertures is of secondary concern. Stanley Kubrick used very 'fast' lenses not because he was interested in DoF, but because he was interested to film at candlelight. He knew thin DoF was totally useless, so he moved cameras farther away. So if you had any working knowledge about photography, you would know why is something made, and for what exact purpose. In the history of photography, especially portraits, never was DoF was such concern, nor was compressed 'creamy background' celebrated at all, as it was in recent years, when a horde of amateurs crowded the digital photography grounds with poor taste and ignorant excuses.

DOF is not directly influenced by sensor size, but the influence is there. When to get the same POV, with the same lens, you need to be farther away from you subject when using a smaller sensor, you are forced to change one variable (distance to subject) that influences DOF, so there you go, the statement "It has nothing with sensor or film size", it's not completely right.

Lens does not know what you want to do with all its characteristics. Same as light, and shadows, and shapes, they do not know what you want to do with them. When you force projection of one lens into some frame of your wild imagination, then you must deal with issues. Optics and photography are in reality very unintimidating, benign and very open for experimentation; it is the utter amateurs who in lack of visual and history knowledge invent most bizarre rules, that cripple the field down to absurdities.

f/0.95 is close enough...

trevorpinnocky Ah this is true. They're fairly similar, but I believe the s16 has slightly more crop than MFT. Thanks for bringing that up.

The bmpcc totally fits in the mft world & ecosystem because of its mount. True it’s an s16 sensor, but it’s just added crop factor onto your focal length. I have both the gh5 & bmpcc, both great cameras and I think of them as mft. Great video by the way.

Black Warrior Lures Wow, great info! I didn't actually know that about 16mm film. Super interesting!

Have you looked at the spec for the new Blackmagic Pocket 4k? I'm tempted to get that. I was looking at the GH5s, but frankly for half the price, with recording straight to SSD for better workflow and free Resolve, I'm thinkcing of picking up the Blackmagic and then a normal GH5 or a G9 for vlogging, photography and run and gun. Two cameras for the price of one, essentially.

Yup! Yup! The P4k is most impressive. A true cimena camera for $1,000. I'd love to keep my GH4 maybe add a P4k at some point. That would be a great combo.

@@BlackWarriorLures I'm the same, looking at a hybrid camera like the G80 or Olympus E-M10 iii for day to day stuff and P4K for narrative. Tough call, Oly looks more stylish, has better stabilisation and colours, but no flippy screen!

Oh, didn't realize Olympus lacked the flippie outie.

Jake Frew Get the GH5s!!! I'm planning on selling my Sony gear and getting both the GH5 and 5s. Can't wait 😍😍

Yes but way too long .. be more straight to the point

G5 is good but heard Af is pretty bad not sure if thats for stills or video

adamstreetboyzz Continuous AF is pretty bad on the GH5 but single point and for stills it's great

I had the same question... Ended up going with the gh5s and I'm really happy with it

Thanks man! More videos soon!

Jeffrey McPheeters Thanks for the kind words!

Nice! That's fair.

This is true, until we consider the new olympus camera, which costs around 3000 euros.with that price range you can easily take a good FF through. But then again, not very good for video recording

4/3rds?? I Think You Meant ""Micro 4/3rds"" Correct?? Or Just 4/3rds? There's a huge Difference

Vegeta Referee That’s just the body and it’s still cheaper than a Nikon D5 or Canon 1Dx. A 300mm f:4 is about a quarter the cost of a 600mm full frame equivalent and a third of the weight.

@@chevypowertogo-9070 4/3 and m4/3 have the same size sensor.

Florian Land Thanks for the kind words aha. Had a lot of fun making this one. Good choice to switch, hope it goes well for u!

That's fair. To each his own honestly. If you're shooting tons of vlogs and self produced content, then by all means buy a camera with great AF (I know I would!) But for me, I do sit down talking head videos, with B-Roll that I can control, weddings, commercial work, etc. I don't NEED AF (it would be nice, especially the other day when i shot my first video with the GH5 and it was out of focus ;) ) but it's not necessary for me.

DJLsb Vapes I shoot motorsports and I get a better hit rate with M43 than I ever did with a DSLR.

What do you mean? The E-M5 Mark II has awesome AF and Image stabilization within the camera itself and that's a micro four thirds from 2015.

@@WhatAboutTom shooting wedding videos in manual focus mode is like using an old Nikon F4 in an age where Sony A1 exists, just for shits. Is it possible? Yeah sure, but I think it's pretty damn stupid and you run the risk of ruining somebody's videos and day. Why not just purchase a proper Canon or Sony mirrorless camera with excellent dual pixel autofocus and real time eye tracking AF? I don't care if you're freaking James Cameron, no amount of focus pulling skills will match the quality of modern AF systems.

The olympus has phase detection AF.

Out of curiousity, why did you go from FF to M4/3? I was considering going the other way.

@@Lepewhi Size and weight. I’m getting older, but still like to travel, and I wanted more compact gear for the road.

@@RonaldBrown59 I see. I'm getting older too. So maybe I'll stay put. Plus FF lenses are a bit expensive.

How's your G85 !? Is it still worth buying for semi-professional works !?

😂😂😂

Gordon Lamb Good info! Thanks for sharing

Equivalence is flawed as for getting the same exposure on that hypothetical FF you would need to use quadruple ISO value. And then get the same picture. What's the point ? We can compute hypothetical equivalence with medium format, too. Which is equally pointless... Oh and for wide angle lenses, short flange distance means simpler lenses. M4/3 offers quite interesting and cheap (in comparison) lenses, like the Panasonic 7-14mm or that Laowa 7.5mm f/2. The Olympus 7-14mm is a really nice lens too (bit more expensive, but constant f/2.8 is nice).

I actually have the Panasonic 7-14mm lens and it's freakin' brilliant. I do wish it was faster, though.

Depth of field is a function of the focal length. A 50mm f/1.8 lens on a FF and on a Micro 4:3 would get the same depth of field. It's the field of view that is different due to the sensor size. Using a 25mm lens on the Micro 4:3 would give an equivalent field of view, but depth of field changes due to the focal length change.

Right .. well, focal length and aperture size. Sensor size totally irrelevant.

Alf Williamsen I could ask the opposite. How the hell did I reach 535 subscribers??? Super pumped!

When you do the right thing not many will recognise you!

Watch the video and you'll see why....

SunBro Why? How many people really care about that level of technical detail? I was a working professional for many years (photojournalist) and in the end, the only things I cared about were size, weight and cost. If I were still doing that work, I would undoubtedly go for M43. The presumed advantages of full frame are not enough to justify the disadvantages. In fact, the advantages most people quote are of minimal importance. For my kind of work it’s a no brainer.

In theory I believe FF can emulate M43...by cropping in post production or by setting the image area. But this is often not practical. FF matching M43 by zooming in which will introduce background compression and shallower depth of fields. For those of us who want a deep sharp picture, M43 is still a much more practical option and noise won't be an issue with most lighting conditions. Yes, the # of pixels matters more than the sensor size, but the reality is most FF cameras will have more pixels than a M43, and therefore will be more taxed (heat, electricity, computational power) for processing.

hey sunbro, sorry for taking 8 months to reply to you. You're right, you COULD just increase your ISO, but you're speaking as though all cameras are made equally. The Nikon D850, for example, is known to have horrible low light capabilities because of it's extremely high MP count. Without having to take low light ISO capabilities into consideration, going with MFT is much easier. The D850 might be usable at ISO 4000, but stopping down by 2x to match the DOF of MFT requires you to 2x your ISO as well. Now you're sitting at 8000. That's a big difference sometimes, and maybe the D850 can't handle that. Plus, maybe you're trying your best to shoot at a Native ISO so you get the best color, dynamic range, and noise performance, but you want to stop down in order to have a wider focus plane. Now you're creating a worse image just because you need LESS DOF. The thing I love about MFT is the flexibility. I own a number of MFT lenses, so technically when i'm shooting at f2.8, i'm getting the same DOF as if i were shooting at f5.6. But on the flip side, I own a Metabones speedbooster that can do a 0.64x crop, and make all the Full Frame glass I have replicate a true 2.8 (and even further if I want, technically. With a 0.64x speedbooster, you're technically get 1 1/3 stops extra, not just 1 stop extra. So my 24-70 2.8 from Tamron can go all the way down a true 1.8!) Sure, in theory you can stop down and make sure you have a wide focus plane, but that causes a lot more issues than just shooting MFT and having the flexibility to shoot whichever way you want and retain the same amount of detail.

I believe the reason that doesn't exist is because of the flange distance. The flange distance on Sony cameras is about 18mm, whereas on MFT it's 19.5mm. In order to adapt a lens to your camera, the lens has to be made for a camera that has a larger flange distance than the one you're trying to adapt to.

For filmmaking primarily, the GH5 no question. But for photography, the G9 will be a better option.

I did that for years but you end up with a camera that's the same size and weight as a full frame dSLR with none of the advantages. Don't get me wrong. I liked my cameras but M43 is a better choice.

@@thethirdman225 There's the Sony A6X00 series cameras, only real disadvantage is they're pretty pricey (maybe except the A6000). There's more options with micro 4/3.

@@lordmashie I have to admit, much as the A6000 looked good on paper, I never really liked it from an operational point of view. A mate of mine ha one but it suits him better than me. It's a personal thing but the E-M1's superb (IMHO) ergonomics got it over the line against the others.

@@thethirdman225 I had a Sony a6000 and really liked it, but was tired of a lack of affordable lenses to go with it. To give you an example of what I mean, a Sony E-mount 10-18mm costs $1000 in Canadian dollars. By comparison, Canon's 11-22 costs $429CDN, and is just as sharp. So I sold my Sony a6000 and got a Canon EOS M6 instead.

Steve Struthers I’m not familiar with the M6 but I did have the EF-S 10-22. I know what you mean about prices though. Sony seem to have decided to charge extortionate amounts of money for all except a few of their lenses. Unfortunately, a rising tide lifts all ships and that’s where it’s gone. Even manufacturers like Sigma are now very expensive.

A 0.64x speed booster on the GH5s is literally a 1.1x crop, which is closer to full frame than APS-C

Tom Ryan The new Speed Booster XL 0.64x reduces the full-frame crop factor of the Panasonic GH4 from 2.0x to 1.28x, thus effectively transforming these cameras into APS-H format. When the GH4 is used in Cinema 4k video mode the horizontal full frame crop factor is reduced from 2.34x to 1.50x, thus effectively transforming the GH4 into a super-35 format 4k cine camera. (From there website)

@@nickgrace4699 Yes, and if u noticed, I never mentioned the GH4 at all in any part of the video or my comment. All cameras have different styles of cropping. Some shoot more cropped than others regardless of their sensor size. Notice how it says "the GH4 will shoot at 2.34x crop in C4K." The GH5 and GH5s don't do that, they use the full sensor. The GH5s has a bigger sensor than the GH5, and will crop at around 1.8x. this means if u add a speed booster of 0.64x, the crop factor will be 1.1x. please read my comments in full in order to fully understand.

Tom Ryan The GH5 has a 2x crop in 4K video mode, so there has been a lot of speculation about whether the Speedbooster XL can be used to give the image the appearance of an approx. 1.3x crop factor camera (similar to the Canon EOS 1D C). (Also not trying to bash on you, I Do like the video)

@@nickgrace4699 Ahaha dude u gotta read what I say. The GH5S NOT the GH5. I've said it a few times now, you gotta read. The GH5s has a 1.8x crop. GH5S. S. Not the regular GH5. If you shoot in C4K at 4096x2160, it's a 1.8x crop, which, when speed boosted by 0.64x, becomes a 1.1x crop.

If you have no reason for autofocus, or it's not a big part of your productions, then the GH5 is the way to go.

Max Miesen It will come down to how you light and compose.

Give people like me the credit for having the knowledge to buy what they absolutely know FITS THEIR USAGE. Your toy of a camera can't match my D850 + 500mm F5.6 PF. Now don't give me the argument of "300mm f4 on m43 is equal to 600mm" because it doesn't lol. also that lens is HEAVIER and MORE EXPENSIVE than Nikon's 300mm f4, lmao. anyway, m4/3 is for people that want small bodies, big lenses, and to feel better about themselves for being special for not buying what makes more sense to actually buy lol.

Are you 12 years old? Your FX is also a "toy of a camera" if you talk to a medium-format fashion photographer. There are always bigger fish in the sea, remember that.

@@kay5356 bigger? bigger? lol.. medium format is useless for most uses. completely uselss. people buy medium format for portraits and fashion, or because they are rich and want to brag. idiot. you completely ignored everything I said and commented only about 1 really superficial thing, you're clearly a fucking idiot.

It's the small things that tell a lot about a person. And your childish name-calling pretty much confirms your level of qualification. Regarding your statement that "medium-format is useless for most uses" (?), they can be used to great effect for portraits, fashion, product, landscape photography, which make up a huge number of uses. You seem to have taken my comment at surface level too -- belittling others for their gear is a lost battle from the start. Try to be a better person.

you must know me in real life. you're probably one of those fatty McChubbies @@kay5356

Hey thanks!

But for landscape photographers who print large images and need the higher dynamic range, FF is where it's at, or medium format of you're that way inclined. At the end of the day it's what gets the job done for you.

RE: "enough quality" - The viewer of the image isn't going to say "That photo is good enough quality for the sensor size, smaller body size and weight."

@@mikal thats complete bullshit and that myth has been busted.... look up The School of Photography video where he puts a FF canon against an Olympus, does shots with each and prints them at 3ft.... even the professional lab printer couldnt tell which shots came from which camera.... Also, the client is only interested in the end result, not how you got there... no matter what gear you use it will not save your pathetic photography skills.... only noobs argue about which camera is "better"

Using your exact logic, the 1" sensor in my RX100 must be twice as good as any 4:3.

oh really? i wonder how can the 300mm f4 olympus MICRO FOUR THIRDS LENS IS HEAVIER THAN THE NIKKOR 300MM PF.. I JUST WONDER.. the lenses are the same size, bodies are smaller. a 24mm f1.4 is a 24mm f1.4. you cant argue about that fact.

Altered Exposure Image Design Altered Exposure Image Design ISO is much more than just noise levels, so in reality, no, u can't just stop down and get the same performance. You also have to factor in native ISO which can also affect dynamic range, and color performance. The MFT to full frame comparison was not for focal length, but for difference in depth of field. And yes, in theory the BMPCC4K is a better camera, but it requires a ton more memory, and produces MASSIVE file sizes because of the fact that it shoots in ProRes. I haven't done any research on the XT3, but I suggest you do because it seems like a great camera!

Thank you!

Christopher O'Grady I mean, this isn't true, but I already explained why so I'm not sure how else to say it aha

Lens aperture is a pure optical property, that is not linked to any sensor size. You can project the image on a photographic paper for that matter. As a counterpoint, i can use a FF lens adapted on a Panasonic camera. If it's a f/2 lens it doesnt become f/4 all of sudden and exposure still works the same. People mix up signal-to-noise ratio with exposure (there are different..). SNR is also affected by the technology of the sensor, modern sensors are better than older ones. The point can be made that even tiny phone sensors are becoming quite impressive (their lenses not so much though).

Guillaume M Thank you, I didn't feel like explaining it for 9th time lmao

If the question is only about light, the FF has a two-stop advantage over the m43. That's it, when dealing with the whole sensor in generic terms (before looking at, say, pixel size or sensor technology). Anything else is going to depend on the lens used.

This "two stop advantage" is in SNR only, and at similar technological levels (and there are some variations around it). M4/3 today is as good as previous FF generations..

Stefan1968ful I totally hear you, that's why I said it might be best to stick with full frame for photography. But for video, I can't see any reason why an MFT camera isn't just as capable as a full frame camera.

Ah, don't get me wrong. I was interested into an Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II. Together with an Olympus 300mm f/4. As a tool for Wildlife on travels (the crop factor of 2.0 is cool). But...as I said, the Autofocus could not match my expectations, especially on Continuous Tracking. I don't care much about sensor size as I am also using with the Nikon D500 an APS-C sensor for Wildlife. But true is that in low light situation a Fullframe sensor has an advantage, I also cannot ignore this. At daylight it does not matter that much in my opinion.

Stefan1968ful fair points!

Just hope that Panasonic & Co don't give up M43, it is better than many people think. Especially due to the crop factor of 2.0 you can build up relatively small lenses, way smaller than for Fullframe. And that is in my opinion the real advantage of M43.

Doesn't the crop factor really help with focal length though? I can't imagine, handholding a full frame 600mm lens vs a 300mm M43 plus IBIS.

I'd probably buy the GH5 if it was APS-C, but not full frame.

Yea, the craze is for super shallow depth of field now. I appreciate both!

Jason E If I said replicate full frame then I apologize. What I meant is that you can replicate Full Frame depth of field by using a speedbooster, and it also gives you an extra 1.5 stops of light, so it will also help you achieve a similar low light performance.

The a7iii is a great camera but the GH5 beats it in several areas. The GH5 has a larger and higher resolution LCD, way higher resolution and better quality EVF, shoots 12FPS to the a7iii's 10FPS, higher resolution video, does 4K 60p, has a flash sync port, it does 4k and 6k photo mode and its less expensive. Lenses are also much cheaper than E mount lenses. I'll take the GH5 all day.

@@WhatAboutTom Shallow depth of field is usually a bad thing in video, and it's a way overused artistic mechanism ever since the DSLR filmmaking revolution hit. Backgrounds are super important and so many people just don't respect that.

@@JodyBruchon It all depends, but yes, it can be a bad thing no doubt.

@@michaelbell75 I have a GH5 and an A7iii and the sony beats the GH5 in almost every area. Way better dynamic range, better low light performance, way way better autofocus, the footage is just as crisp etc. The GH5 does have better IBIS, and a better screen, and 10 bit but none of these things outweigh the dynamic range and low light performance when these things are needed. 10 bit is overrated for many people - they can't see or benefit from the difference. cameras are just tools man, use whatever gets the job done for you.

Hey brother, love the name (I get it, but it's not 2008 😄) So, while you're correct in that the F-stop will determine the depth of field you get, it's also determine by what sensor you use. Think of it this way: when you shoot at 35mm at F4 on a Full Frame camera, but then you crop in 100% in post, you aren't then seeing 70mm at F4, you're basically seeing 70mm at F8. The depth of field isn't changing, just the field of view (which is now equivalent to 70mm with a 2x crop.) So, Micro Four Thirds sensors have a 2x crop (in comparison to 35mm cameras, which is the standard when talking about crop factors.) So any lens you put on it, you have to multiply the focal length by 2, and therefore also multiplying the F-stop by 2 (in relation to depth of field, not light being let in to hit the sensor.) So if you shoot at 50mm on a full frame camera at F1.4, and shoot on a micro four thirds camera at 25mm (equivalent to 50mm) at F1.4, the field of view will be the exact same, but the Full Frame camera's background will be significantly more blurry than the Micro Four Thirds camera. Hope this explains it!

Tom Ryan you have to understand anyone that takes in consideration into getting a cropped sensor will have enough sense to get a lens to make up for the crop. You have to know in order to get says 28mm equivalent Lens on a cropped sensor you know you’ll have to get a 14 or 15mm Lens to get in the same ball park. I understand what your saying, but when I use say my AF100 I’m not gonna be using the same Lens I have on my Sony FS700 or even my D850. Going into that you make up for those allowances, but your talking about apples and oranges, to prove a point that as a statement isn’t true, sensor size doesn’t dictate the depth of field, I can get the same exact picture on each sensor sharpness will change depending on the lens. I love the micro thirds look tho.

Yes, I know this, that's why I said you would use a 25mm lens (usually uncommon for Full Frame) to get the equivalent of a 50mm. However, like I said, this isn't a true 50mm. It's literally a 25mm lens optically, but it's made for a camera that will have a 2x crop, and therefore made for a specific purpose (this is why lenses like a 17.5mm exist.) So you're still cropping, and still have to take into account the loss of depth of field from crop factor. Any time you crop a lens's true focal length, you're also cropping its aperture in relation to the depth of field. So, although you can purposely buy a 25mm lens in order to get the field of view of a 50mm, your f-stop is not going to be the same as if you were shooting on a native 50mm. If you shoot at 25mm at f1.4, you're essentially shooting at the equivalent of 50mm at 2.8, not 50mm at 1.4. Field of view absolutely has an impact on depth of field, because you have to take into account the amount of the image circle you're actually showing, and the distance from the camera that your subject is.

Tom Ryan sounds like your complete on thinking your opinion is an actually fact when it isn’t. Your argument is that if I have a lens that compromises the focal distance your saying I can’t get an f stop to match the original full frame lens which is false. Listen justify anything u need for your purchase, the fact is your wrong about what you said. This isn’t personal this is the comment section, I know people in general don’t like being wrong, but it’s the only way to learn and grow. The fact that your explaining trying to justify your point to a stranger on your RU-vid channel is funny. Every camera has its use, sometime crops work in your favor, it does for your wedding shoots like you said, but the sensor doesn’t dictate a shallow depth of field, again the f stop does.

Tom Ryan and please don’t take offense from me calling you fool I don’t literally mean your a fool, it’s like when your tell ur friends “man ur crazy bro” I didn’t mean to offend if I did.

Totally feel you. I love MFT!

Mitch Med Media Thanks for the kind words!

Pedro E. PérezPHOTOGRAPHY I personally think the BMPCC 4K is going to be an amazing camera with HUGE capabilities. I love Blackmagic cameras, and they would probably be my cameras of choice if I didn't do weddings and didn't need good low light/in body stabilization.

There are full frame cameras that allow you to shoot in APS-C mode like the Sony A7R iii, but it has to be built into the software of the camera, and the camera has to have a big enough sensor to do that. If the camera is a 18 MP sensor and you crop in 2x, you won't be able to shoot 4k anymore because there just isn't enough pixels in that part of the sensor.

@@WhatAboutTom I see...

Hey, thanks Kevin! Hit me up if you need any help deciding!

Dope Sauce! Thanks for the sub and thanks for the kind words!

Timothy Gordon Tim! I'm feeling super awesome after reading that aha. Love to hear stuff like this! I do currently have a tutorial on color grading which will teach you a bit of the basics of getting a pretty image, but maybe I'll do a video specifically on the GH5 in the future!

Tom Ryan aww good! I actually watched that video and found it helpful. I’m on Final Cut Pro and am struggling mostly with that rich, textured look you get - if I shoot using the vivid profile on the GH5, I’m pretty happy but want to do more with my cinematic broll for meditation videos so I’ve been trying to shoot in vlog and it’s not going so hot! Haha

Timothy Gordon I wouldn't recommend VLOG, it can be very hard to work with, and I've seen bad reviews on it such as green tints in the skintones. I wonder if the textured look you're talking about has less to do with color and more to do with light?

Manuel Pereira Of course it can. Much better to be able to get a decent shot with an M43 that you can’t get with your technically superior full frame because of cost/size/weight.

I personally prefer full frame but a lot of people say MFT works great as well.

I actually have the GH5 now, and yes, it's freaking amazing compared to what Sony offers.

I still think it's nice to have the flexibility of using a speed booster, or going with a crop depending on how much light you need. I think it's really annoying (and doesn't look very good at all) to shoot below f2.8 on a full frame camera, so having the ability to bring more light to the sensor without having a razor thin depth of field is still an advantage of micro four thirds. And if you're going to say to just "raise the ISO" remember that the more u raise the ISO, the more color shifting there will be which will muddy an already sub-par Sony color science. I think they've pretty much completely closed the gap in terms of processing power. Full frame cameras have finally caught up to what MFT cameras are capable of (at least in terms of what filmmakers ACTUALLY need. I'm sure they could make an MFT camera that shoots 10k but no one really needs 10k...) Glass size is still going to be an issue because it still has to cover a larger image circle, but companies like Tamron are doing a good job of combatting large lenses by striking off a few mm in focal length here and there (28-70 2.8 for example.) All in all, I think at this point the best option is going to be what works best for your budget. The A7S iii is still going to run $4000 for just a body, and Sony lenses are known to be really expensive. I think in about 5-10 years it probably won't matter what sized sensor you shoot on, but I still think MFT has enough advantages at this point that there are still reasons to choose it over full frame. Unfortunately there aren't any APS-C cameras in the same category as the GH5 or A7S III. Personally, if I had the choice, I'd choose something like that. A GH5 with an APS-C sensor and 4k 60fps 10-bit would probably be the perfect camera. I'd love to have an URSA Mini, but it's just way out of my price range and unjustifiable.

Thanks a lot man! New video out now! Go check it out!

Tom Ryan Yes I’ve just seen it and it made my day 😄🙏🏼 I always struggled with it, huge appreciation for that! I’ve just purchased it now 😅 Hit the bell icon, waiting for the next episode! You really rock man! 👊🏼

@@GaborVincze Awesome! Wish they had an affiliate program aha. I just made them $4! (Not a sponsor)

Tomas Kuprys Thanks! Yes I have. I heard 4k 60fps, 10-Bit 422 at around $3000. Not sure how I feel. New glass, new system. We'll have to see what it's like when it comes out. I'm just personally hoping it drops the price of the GH5 and GH5s 😉😉

When you don't want to waste more money. When you want get best price & best feature ratio. So mft is your correct choice.

What do you mean when you say the 2/3? I'm assuming you're speaking about a sensor size but I'm not familiar with it

@@WhatAboutTom yes, sensor size, here is the description; Canon SX740 HS comes with a 1/2.3" (~ 6.16 x 4.62 mm) CMOS sensor, which has a diagonal of 7.70 mm (0.3") and a surface area of 28.46 mm². Since I dont know too much about caneras I pasted the info. Thanks

@@aldon78 you can get good images with any camera, it's just a matter of how you use it. I get better photos with an iPhone than some people do with a $5000 camera. It's all about knowing how to use your tool. However, smaller sensors do have a harder time pushing out good images in bad conditions. Any camera can look good with good/non extreme lighting, but larger sensors are going to help you do things like shoot in darker environments, have better dynamic range, and give you more depth of field (which really isn't a huge issue when looking at MFT vs Full Frame, but 1/2.3" is a little small to get solid depth of field unless you're shooting wide open.)

@@WhatAboutTom thank you Tom! I guess I will save the money for what I do ocationally taking picts I am fine, and for 399.00 its fair price. 👍

Yes, absolutely. Any adapter you use will be slower than native AF.

Thanks dude! Hoping to make a new video soon!

Tom Ryan I’m looking forward to it! I subscribed, and I’m seriously considering your advice as I’m looking at upgrading to a new camera. Currently considering lumix g85, do you know if it’s any good?

@@TamirYankevich I've heard great things about the g85, but the GH5 is on sale right now for Black Friday for like $1200. I'd HIGHLY recommend pulling the trigger on that

Tom Ryan hahah I’ll keep you posted, thank you for the recommendation, I really appreciate it!

@@TamirYankevich no problem!

I've heard a lot of people say that they love MFT for photography. I've never used it myself, but it seems like a lot of people do.

Awesome! Ive heard great things about that camera.

Yeah it seems to be a great little camera so far. And surprisingly comfortable to handle too. The IBIS and the price of lenses vs FF lenses really sold it for me. I only have the 25mm f1.7 at the moment. But I really enjoy the 50mm format. So Im pretty happy to wait till I can afford the 12-35mm.

I use a Sony SF-G Series UHS-II 300mbps card for 4k at 400MBPs and it works fine!

Have you ever tested the video time with this SD card? I've seen a few people say they only will work for like 10mins and to instead use the Sandisk 128gb UHS-ii 300/mpbs cards

@@stevendukedesigns Unfortunately I haven't. Maybe in the future I'll run some tests on it and let you know what I find