Full Frame vs Micro 4:3 - Where It Matters Most 

I got rid of my full frame gear and went Olympus micro 4/3rd, and I don’t have a sore back anymore. Image quality wise, I can’t tell the difference and neither can my customers.

Some people still think they need the latest and greatest Sony A7 VIII with 86 megapixels to shoot pictures of their cat and share it on Instagram.

I entered a photo contest and came in dead last. I complained and told them to look at the sharpness and dynamic range of my photos. Mine were the best in that regard, no contest! The judges mentioned composition, light, mood and other artsy nonsense. Obviously the judges haven't been paying close enough attention to the camera manufacturer's ads.

It’s amazing how many people like to make Strawman arguments to justify the system they use. I doubt that many users of fullframe cameras chose fullframe because it gives them an advantage when printing large. They more likely chose it because it suits their needs in terms of noise and dynamic range and ability to recover shadows and highlights when processing the raw file and sometimes because of choice of lenses or getting a shallow depth of field or autofocus capabilities, etc. And people who chose M43 probably didn’t choose M43 because it gives them an advantage when printing large either. They probably chose M43 because they prefer smaller/lighter lenses and bodies or because of the superior IBIS or cheaper lenses or some other unique features that the M43 cameras have.

I have prints from Panasonic M4/3's hanging in hotels that are up to 6ft on the long edge. No one ever questions what kind of camera I use.

I’m not surprised at the result. I’m an amateur photographer who uses a full frame Canon 5D Mk III DSLR, and increasingly a Canon G1X Mk II compact, which has a sensor about the same size as micro 4/3, for walking and travel. Portability is a major factor, and a full frame DSLR is heavy when you’re carrying it round all day. At my photography club I’ve been just as successful in competitions with photos taken on the compact as those taken on the DSLR.

I love how you combined a technical discussion with an artistic semi-tutorial, plus a small introduction to Southend-on-Sea. That's exactly the type of mix to implement against potentially boring videos. Like!

Having owned both a 6D (full frame) and 80D together, I dismissed MFT ever since I heard about it--which was maybe 5 years ago when I saw an E-M1 ad. When I researched it and saw the size of the sensor I laughed. After seeing photos on line for awhile, and having lugged my 6D and 2 L lenses on a 3 day tip to Europe, I decided to rent a E-M5 mkII and a Lumix 12-35mm 2.8 on a trip to Utah. One week after my return I bought my own E-M5mkii, Olympus 12-40 2.8 and Lumix 24-100 2.8. The sharpness and colors can't be beat. All of my Canon equipment is being packed this week and shipped off to KEH. Oh and my backpack got much, much lighter.

Thanks for comparing the two side-by-side in prints. It truly shows the realities of m4/3's with no true distinction between the quality. This was a great lesson for those looking for a camera. I know it sold me on what I'm getting.

the real difference between a FF and a M4:3 ... is the photographer ;)

Thanks for this video. I'm in photography from more than 30 years now (was a wedding one) and i've switched in µ4/3 3 years ago, when the system seemed complete for a pro needs with pro bodies and lenses (EM1 and the Zuiko f:2.8 triade). In fact, even if 24x36 is technicaly superior in several points, there is a lot of wonderfull innovations founded only in this system (live programs, 4K photo, focus stacking...) and I found this system sufficient for 95% of my needs and even 100% with a little care and adaptation! In all cases much more valuable than my old argentic bodies wich gave me fantastic results since the 80's... But in this time we were looking at photos on real paper, not pixel peeping! And "real" wedding photographers were in 6x6... The real advantage of µ4/3 is polyvalence: it can be as small as a pocketable GM1 & 12-32 (or 20:1.7), tiny like an EM10 & 9-18 or 14-150, or Pro like an GX9 or EM1-II with grip & 12-100mm or 40-150:2.8... That's the only system who can offer such a diversity to photographers and I do love that!

As someone who is planning this kind of transition in gear I was really pleased to watch this video. Many thanks.

I'm omd em1 user and I really love this camera , very sharp , so light with the smaller body and lens .

Actually, the Olympus is in this instance less than 20mp as it has been set to 3x2 therefore cropping a load off the top and bottom, probably coming out at around 18Mp for print. Which means the difference (or lack of) is even more remarkable

And yet another great video! I have the Olympus micro four thirds and couldn’t be happier.

I’m not a professional and don’t do large prints. I switched from FF to APSC and now back to FF. I do mostly portrait and shots of my family. The full frame gives me a certain look that I could not replicate on my APSC, maybe depth of field? Regardless, for me... there was a noticeable difference, and I’m young enough that the weight does not bug me too much. Thanks for the video!

This video helped me to lift up my spirit! Thank you! I have the Nikon D7100 and by looking at the photos taken by a friend of mine with the Nikon D 810 I've being feeling hopeless. My motto is that I will never spend the big bucks on a full frame camera until the day I really have and understanding of the technical aspects of my cropped frame camera. Thank you again!

Thank you. Put my mind at ease. Now buying a G9 with no anxiety.

This has been the most astonishing priceless proff of how the full-frame v/s the 4/3 works. For me, optics must be the ultimate word un photography. THANKS

Excellent and honest comparison. I do appreciate the printer being involved.

This is amazing Marc! I never expected the prints for the olympus ... Awesome! I was planning to get a M43 camera. Thanks for this

I have also made these comparisons several times. It's absolutely true: Both on the iMac 27" with the fantastic 5K monitor or directly on a enlargement from the printing studio, differences - especially with different subjects - are kind of difficult or impossible to detect. But in my opinion, this is not the criterion in most cases, unless someone starts to deal with photography from scratch and makes his (valuable!) considerations because of the weight and the money. An experienced NIKON, CANON or even LEICA photographer will hardly change from full format to 4/3rd because of supposed sharpness problems. Such do simply not exist! Because aforementioned cameras are certainly not worse - only heavier and more expensive - unfortunately! Only, and this IS an argument - in my age (75) one has visibly trouble to drag a D850 or even D5 or D6 together with the matching best-seller lenses 2.8/24-70 and 2.8/70-200 mm for hours on a trip or in the city. However, completely different criteria definitely count more: Habit, the safe, familiar handling, the fantastic cropping possibilities, contrast range, noise behavior, especially from 1600 ISO and higher - or their ISO performance in general and - already purchased lenses! These are indeed far more important for these people! I found for myself an affordable solution: I searched and found a barely 3-year-old, beautiful OLYMPUS-2nd-hand body: The OLYMPUS PEN-F plus a 21mm Voigtländer wide angle! This couple ist simply a dream for city- and landscape photography! And with a little bit of luck - one can find it for less than 1'000.- €. Best regards to all! Rolf Oehen, Switzerland

As someone who uses micro 43 for pro work as well as for photos at home its good to see the micro 43 prints doing so well..am I surprised? Perhaps a little but then again I have always been impressed with the IQ from these cameras so thanks for taking the time to create such an interesting video...

I have done a similar test (not printed, but on a 27" calibrated monitor) with an Olympus E5 and a Canon 5D (some would call it "Mark 1"). Both approximately 12-13 megapixels and ... mostly the Olympus got more fine detail in foliage. Both lenses were used at their optimal aperture (f/6.3 for the Zuiko and f/9 for the Canon). The main difference is the depth of field: a full frame will always have a shallower DOF. To prove that I took a 50mm Zuiko (from my OM-2n) and put it on both camera's to photograph the same object. You might suspect a shallower DOF on the Olympus since 50mm converts to 100, but the distance is also doubled and because the DOF is decreased when the distance increases, the DOF is even shallower! And... This is a very interesting video, Marc.

thanks for the video, completely takes us away from the pixel-peepers gearhead videos we see all the time, well done for showing that there is no tangible difference as that print size.

Micro four thirds is awesome because you can get those crazy telephotos plus the 2x crop factor so you can get equivalent to 200-600 millimeters for 600 bucks but try getting something like that on full frame and you're not gonna be able to pay your bills.

Wow! I am floored. I have learned a lot from this video lesson. I am staying with my Canon 7D and M6 I can print anything up to a meter without worry.

Great video,thanks. Now factor in that most people are not even shooting for print. They are shooting photos that get compressed, resized and put on websites and social media that are being viewed on mobile devices and the differences between the two becomes even more negligible....

Thanks for this, great work. Went from canon to panasonic G85 two years ago and more recently GH5 as well and am blown away by their image quality and overall superiority. Very clever capable compact cameras.

I work with similar printers and am not surprised by this test. You can get away with quite a lot with digital cameras these days. I reckon you would notice more of a difference if you printed at a larger size.

In my experience, the difference between medium format, full-frame, APS-C, M4/3 is in low light performance, depth of field, and small detail differences of distance objects (traffic cones on a distant road, rock detail off on a distant cliffside).

Fantastic video! Thanks a lot - it´s so much fun to watch your movies and they are full of really useful information . That´s what counts, not the specs, but the results printed and judged by an unbiased specialist! Wonderful!

I'm grateful for the video and am not surprised by the results. If you have time, it would be interesting to see a similar comparison in low light or ultra high contrast scenes. Thanks again.

Very enjoyable video. I owned an Omlympus EM1 mark II for about 17 months and have to say it was a fantastic bit of kit, easily comparable to my Nikon D500. In fact, it was a lot more versatile for wildlife photography than my D500. I often took almost identical shots with both cameras and most of the time could not tell them apart. The only drawback with the EM1.2 was it's performance in lower light. I swapped both cameras for a Sony A7III and A7II system and there is a big difference in the quality of my images when shooting in low light, which is most of the time where I live. My perfect camera would be a full frame EM1 mark II.

I wonder if the results would be different if two of the same pictures were compared. Interesting video non the less.

Loved this video. Great shots with impressive results and e very strong point being made here! Pixel peeping on landscapes photos (especially with trees) might have showed some differences. I guess the 80:20 rule will work here, where 80 percent of the time no difference is visible at all. Thumbs up for Roger for being such a great sport!!

Great video again. The conclusion of all the videos I have watched on FF v APSc and MFTs is that a FF is only worth it if you shoot a lot in low light with a super wide aperture.

I am absolutely sure that both cameras perform to level beyond the need of the average photographer including the ' pros ', but surely the only way to properly compare them would have been to shoot the same subject at the same FOV at optimal aperture. Good show BTW, thanks.

Thank You for this video. I use a micro 4/3rds camera to do underwater photography and have concluded from your video and my experience that the lens makes the most difference.

Great real life comparison. You have made it clear and easier for me to make a decision on my next camera purchase. I do sincerely thank you for your time and effort. Thank you, thank you and thank you!

You are a very kind interpreter and a talented photographer. I enjoyed both your photos and the way you explain...

I use the Olympus OMD EM-1 Mk1 camera, and I can honestly say I cannot tell the difference between images taken on Full frame or Micro 4:3 sensors when printing up to A3+ after that I found you do get some falling off on the edges of the image, love the vlog and all the information that you give us, thanks

A great, informative and interesting video, well done. All my old 35mm gear was Olympus, I loved the contrast those optics gave.

Does changing the aspect ratio affect the quality of the image in any way in the m4/3 camera such as loss of pixels or sharpness? I love the Omd but not the aspect ratio.

Very interesting, thank you. I’m a Fuji user so in the middle, but I looked long and hard before investing in a new camera system and in the end it was between Olympus and Fuji

Great video - much enjoyed.

Sir this is first hands on proof that micro thirds is worth looking into. For half the weight and half the prize it's worth trying it. Thanks!

That is such an interesting and helpful video. What a great and well executed idea. So well done. Thank you. New subscriber!

When your work is hanging in the Getty Museum, no one cares if the edges are sharp.

Great video, as always. I must say, from someone who works in marketing and prints on a large scale quite frequently, at the larger sizes the image quality doesn't really matter as much. When you print on a small scale, you might want something that's 300 dpi or more. On the larger scales, you could print at 100 dpi or less and not be able to tell the difference.

I love your video. I'm so glad that I have chosen the DSLR with cropped sensor for personal use since I'm not (yet) a professional photographer. The largest picture size that I've been printing is just A4 for picture frames and the small ones are 4R for the more common album sized photos. I'm so glad to know that the cropped sensor saved me a lot of money and at the same time gives about the same level of quality that an expensive full frame camera can give. Thanks a lot and more power to you.

A real world comparison! The best and most useful information I have seen. Awesome job. I am a retired pro photographer missing my work. So I am rebooting both myself and kit for another adventure.

Sensor size is not directly linked to mega pixels. I feel like stating megapixel for each camera may confuse some people.

Great video, it is so that I too have both these cameras ... :)))) And I found myself to use the Olympus more often because of the size and the weight. It is just amazing. Also I feel that a lot it has to do with the lenses you used. Olympus has a first class glass ...

I have a question. I'm thinking of purchasing a Canon Rebel 7Ti, is this camera a full frame camera or a micro 4.3, can't find this information in the specifications listed. I would appreciate it if you could let me know. Also, what are your thoughts on this camera. Thanks.

I appreciate your video - I am shooting with the SL2 and currently using a 17-400 Tamron and a 17-50 Sigma - I am not impressed with the images shot close up - similar to "macro" style shooting. My comparison is against a 40D (full frame) camera with similar lenses or Tsi 6 with similar lenses. The result in like taking a full frame image and cropping it to the crop sensor size. I think I am not impressed with APS-C crop resolution as compared with full frame. I'm not blaming the lenses either. So can the crop sensor shoot as sharp as the 40D? or is this the price I pay for a smaller sensor?

At work, I run a camera club and we decided to put some of the winners as full wall pictures i.e. 3m X 2m. It's fair to say we're were no experts and the pictures were roughly 3MB to 8MB. One picture was from a reasonable (but NOT top notch) camera phone, two were from canon SX point 1/2.3 and shoots. I was blown away by the quality as they were blown up to such a size. What I noticed - if the size of the picture is life size e.g. a landscape size then your eyes simply fill in the gaps. If however you make the picture too big, the your eyes switch off and look at the gaps. I have to write this as pixel peeping is not what most people judge - only fellow photographers. They will see the forest full of blue bells.

Which lenses were used on which cameras would have been useful too as the quality of the lens does matter. Also taking the same shot with the different cameras might have been an even better comparison which was mentioned below. I actually have a Panasonic G9 M4/3 and find the dual IS very good being able to take hand held pics with the Leica 100-400mm (200-800mm 35mm equivalent) for sports and birds. For landscapes and other subjects I have the 14-140mm Panasonic lens (28-280mm 35mm equivalent).

Thanks a lot for doing this, it's very interesting!

Great video! Are you able to repeat the same test but in more tricky light conditions like a gig?? I'm sure this would show some interesting results.

Excellent post, really eye opening to see m4/3's printed at full size! Both looked amazing (olympus owner! 😀) Really well presented & entertaining - thanks for posting!

I've been using a Panasonic G7 for the past year. I love it so much I'm about to buy the G9.

Hi would the full frame sensor be much better in low light? from what i have read YES.Could you clarify this as i am in the process of buying a new or second hand set up for wildlife and sports in all lighting conditions, looking at an older Nikon D Series or going 4/3rds with the panasonic or olympus.Any help would be welcomed.Dont really care about size and weight.

Amazing results...I'm surprise they're basically identical! Just curious what printing lab you used, thanks

Alright! Now I'm fully confident of my M4:3 camera ;D

3:16 Gramps wasn’t impressed by the drivers lack of knowledge for “right of way” at the zebra crossing hahahah

Can somebody help me out? I’m very new to photography. I have an Olympus e-620 and don’t know how to identify what lenses I can buy for it. The lense I have says 1:35-5.6 and has a number 58 on it. So is the lense a 58mm please help, thanks in advance

What microphone are you using and equipment for the video up to 8 minutes? Any links would be great and thank you!

Love my Land Cruiser but in the city I go with the Smart.

Wow, I am a big fan of M4/3 format and have enjoyed using my E-M1 Mk1 for a couple years now (enough that I sold off my Pentax K-5 kit). Given that, I am still a bit shocked that prints blown up to that huge size still didn't reveal a difference in detail given the pixel count disparity. Truly impressive. However, I will also say that for broad daylight shooting, it's a very even playing field. Even as a big fan of the format, there are trade-offs. Had this shoot comparison consisted of low-light/night shots, it is possible the 5DIV might have provided some noticeably superior prints. Fine by me, the system still does everything I demand of it quite well, including low-light stuff (and I don't even have the Mk II).

Very nice content and professional work! Thank you!

Nice video there! Would love a round 2 of this video!

The difference is the printer. I would have liked to see side-by-side comparison of the same scenes though.

We love our Lumix G7 and prefer the micro four thirds system

Hey Marc, really interesting test buddy, I am soon to purchase a printer and am looking forward to doing some comparison tests between my Canon 760D and (pre-loved) Olympus EM10 mk1. I expect to find both cameras produce great quality shots and will be keen to see how my prints measure up to the Pro shots that I have bought.

I consider there is little difference between photos of FF and 4:3 in depth of picture. Thank you for this video!

What I've been trying to find on RU-vid with a micro 4/3 sensor our astrophotography videos with the quality that you get from a single exposure while capturing the Milky Way.

Even more the m4/3 sensor was cropped to a 3x2 ratio thus less than 20 mp compared to 30 mp. Nice!

Well one thing to note is that when you are printing larger, you don't really need higher resolution than what the Micro 4/3 has because the viewer is going to be standing further back to view the image. I also wonder if the DPI even matches the lower end amount of pixels.

Great video especially as i use the olympus system,but apart from that i liked the nice genuine approach to the comparison test and the input from the printer guy.

That was really interesting!

Thank you for keep my GAS in control, I use APSC Fujifilm, and I hope you shall make in a near future a similar video comparing APSC (Mirrorless) to the full frame Mirrorless, from September on the market will get the new Canon and Nikon FF Mirrorless, besides the already existing Sony models.. Good job.

Thanks, that was pretty cool! How did you up-res the files to print to 1 meter?

Thank you so much for this wonderful posting.

Mind blowing. Eye opener and regret spent more for FF Camera all cost gone high ... :-( now I realised that I could have taken better snaps from my 750D too. So the repeated Mantra goes on ringing ... " It's the hands behind the Gear that matters ""+ lenses !!

Hi Marc: I really enjoyed your video. I have been shooting professionally with the Olympus OMD E-M1 MkII for about 8 months now, after years of full frame Nikon DSLR gear and APS-C Fuji mirrorless gear. I shoot editorial stock images and have licensed images from all three of the formats, (FX, DX, & M4/3s). I was not surprised by your results as I have been very happy with the image quality of the Olympus in good light. As some others have posted, that little sensor does struggle a bit in low light conditions. I can get reasonably clean images up to about 1250 ISO that I have no problem licensing to clients. I'll be venturing into the FX mirrorless realm for low light work in the future. But to be honest, probably 90% of what I shoot, that Olympus is up to the task.

Great video, I had OMD em1 and changed to Canon 7D mark ii, I still think the Only was better and I think I will be switching back to MFT either the G9 or the OMD em1 ii. Great video!!!

I have just moved from using the Nikon D6 and D850 to Olympus OM-1 . I did it because of getting older and wanted less weight to carry around. I was very interested in this video. Thank you.

Good vid ,I have both systems canon and Panasonic /Olympus. Nice to get a professional view on both,I prefer the 4/3. My g80 Camera and 3 lenses take up the same room as the canon and lens but far lighter. 👍

I think when a camera can take fantastic photos any improvements are going to be minuscule. It's like eating a great Sunday roast. Gordon ramsay isn't going to be able to make it taste substantially better. Diminishing returns and that.

I am thinking of splitting the difference between M43 and FF by getting the much acclaimed Fuji XT3 with APS-C sensor. Great reviews and with the new sensor it seems like the way to go

From someone who really appreciates the build of Olympus Pro, I've been on the fence for years in a quest to replace my D7000 (of which I've only been marginally satisfied) and this has answered ALOT of internal questions. Though I still have uncertainties with low light performance of Olympus as it is one of my top 3 needs in an upgrade (fps and write speed being the other 2), this test puts to rest issues of resolution and micro 4/3's. Thank you.

Since digital photography has brought the craft of making photographs to so many more people, more and more photographs are being consumed by the person that took the photo rather than put into print form and consumed by a general audience. As this has occurred, more and more of the appreciation or approval of images comes at the point of editing/developing the image on the photographer's own screens, rather than at the print stage. Indeed, few photos, even those that are technically very good, ever make it to print but are simply viewed and enjoyed by the photographer. In this light, it makes sense that the photographer's own view of their work is their primary source informing them and giving them a means of enjoying the images they craft. Thus it's understandable that for more and more people, their own views of their own images on large backlit computer screens, are where they make their first impressions of their work. I understand this is the way it is for many and it's why many may feel the difference in quality at 100% on a large monitor is significant enough to warrant their using a camera and sensor to produce images that, in reality, could not be distinguished from those taken with equal skill with a smaller sensor camera. When I'm involved shooting high speed action/sports in poor light, I recognize the challenges I will have with my E-M1 mark II bodies vs my buddies using Sony A9 and Canon 1DxII bodies and capable lenses. I can compete, but it's not without some effort on my part and where we might only need to obtain a dozen really good images, I'll have to get my dozen from a sometimes smaller range of keepers vs what they might have to pick from. But at the end of the day, I'm still fresh and not tired from carrying around 500/4 and 600/4 full frame lenses! And I can sometimes get into situations with my smaller kit they simply cannot get to. It's a compromise I've learned to deal with and even take advantage of when I can. Not everyone would want to. I understand. I appreciate your doing this comparison because I can use this to help people who are not really clear on their needs to understand what might be the main motivating factor for them. If it's misplaced fear that their images won't be good enough for print, then this may give them some confidence that sensor size alone is not going to be the pervading obstacle to getting good prints.

Honestly didn't expect the difference to be visible. I checked the linear resolution (horizontally) of both sensors, and the difference is not that big. The Canon has about 1.3x more linear resolution than the Olympus. I would expect more of a visible difference if there was a 2x difference in linear resolution, which would necessitate comparing an 80MP camera to the Olympus. At that point, that's medium format, not full-frame. And the difference would be noticeable only with a big print of a subject with lots of details to look at, like a panoramic view of a city, where it's fun to look up close. A M43 camera certainly can create amazing high quality panoramas, tho. The only time it would matter is if you can only use one shot. However, I wouldn't think megapixels are the advantage of full-frame. I don't own a M43 camera, but I do think they are really cool, just stating. I shoot full-frame because of low light/fast speed. I sometimes have to take shots in dark theatres of fast moving subjects (think Cirque du Soleil kinda stuff), using fairly high ISOs and fast lenses. I shoot with a Sony A7RIII. With that sensor, not only can I shoot a bit less narrow and crop in post to make it easier to follow the action, but I can underexpose on purpose so that stage lights don't make people's skin blow up and then push it in post to make more details appear from the dark. It's for that kind of shots I shoot full-frame. Not everyone needs that, but that's a compelling reason.

Nice work ..i own a ff , apsc and i recently bought a gh5 for video.. but i now find myself using it for stills as well. I think people who have that " ff will always win ! Printing ? Who cares about printing!" Mentality , are the ones who spend way too much time in front of a pc zoomed in at 400% counting pixels

I keep coming back to this video, so I just went ahead and liked and subscribed. Good job and Thanks for doing this.

The m4/3 is actually 17.8 MP round up to tenths when you change from 4:3 to 3:2 aspect ratio. 20.4MP is in the native 4:3 ratio. I myself switched from FF and DX nIkon to Panasonic m4/3 and printed 16x20" of the same shot on all 3 sensor sizes, at that size I saw to difference in the print so I use m4/3 now. I would like to see what a 1 meter print would be like of a landscape taken by both cameras to see if it looks significantly different. I would expect maybe a little more detail in the higher MP print but likely not enough to tell unless very close.

I didn't know that Josef Koudelka is that famous in the US. And it's pronounced like Kodealka with the o like in the word home and ea like in the word dead ;-). Greetings from Czech Republic, his homeland.

Great video Marc and really surprised by the outcome 👍

Great, informative video. Can you tell us what was the lens on the olympus?