Merits of M43 against Full Frame (in a Professional Environment) - RED35 VLOG 101 

Good stuff Jimmy. I shoot an A7IV, an A6600, and an E-m1 III. I really prefer the E-M1 but the scientist part of my brain says I need to commit fully to FF. But then I take all three cameras, out together, and shoot the same images with each. (to prove to myself I suspect, that FF is superior) Then I get home put them up side by side, and I just don't see any difference. So, I'm selling the A6600 and the E-m1 III.... because an OM-1 will be delivered Friday! 😁

You clearly explained why m4/3 isn't inferior, only different. I find myself wanting more depth of field than not and if I want a more shallow dof in a portrait I just use a longer focal length and back up a bit. Stopping action in dim light is the only time I struggle but dxo can help a lot, as you covered.

I fully agree and thank you for showing, as a professional photographer, that m43 is not inferior to full format as is often portrayed, but simply different without making any great difference in the result. In my experience, most of those who badmouth m43 and praise their full-frame equipment are mainly (ambitious) amateur photographers. Sometimes I get the impression that their bashing serves to reassure themselves and justify why they are running around with big cameras and have spent a lot of money on them. It's nice to have such a wide choice of cameras and lenses from so many manufacturers and with so many formats. And everyone has the opportunity to find the right one for themselves. I like my m43 equipment with a few cameras and several lenses and I will have fun with it for a long time to come.

This is the most sane balanced comparison based upon practical experience that I have heard. My only worry is that OM Systems will lack the financial clout to keep developing the format in a very competitive market. Oh, and BTW, your reviews/discussions with Charli Meredith are still the best I've seen on RU-vid for any brand. Your images with Charli and the 17 f1.2 demonstrate perfectly how MFT and lowlight could work really well.

I use both a Canon EOS R full frame system and an OMDS (Olympus) M43rds system. Watching your video was like listening to my own thoughts on the full-frame vs crop-sensor debate. I agreed with everything you said right down to your processing with DxO, which I use for about 95% of my heavy lifting these days. I also use Lightroom Classic, but for virtually every scenario baring photomerging (which Lightroom wins easily), DxO is my preferred processing software. In fact, even with Lightroom's excellent AI driven local adjustments such as sky selection, I can generally get results that I prefer using the tools in DxO PhotoLab. That software has been an absolute game changer! While you covered most of the field with this video, it should be added that there is one more variable tied to image quality, and that is cost. With larger sensors, there is also an inherent need for larger glass elements, and I suspect that making high quality glass with larger diameters is a little more difficult and a little more expensive and time consuming. Unlike you, I am not an engineer, so maybe I am wrong. Still, this seems to be supported by the relatively higher cost of the best optics on the larger sensor systems. Anyway, I enjoyed this video. We seem to be getting similar mileage on the two different formats. They both have a place, and choice makes photography a richer experience. That said, in no way is the contest a slam dunk win for either side. That's one reason why I feel obligated to defend m43rds. I really want to have choice well into the future, and m43rds does offer some significant advantages, as does full-frame. For me, I generally prefer using my m43rds gear, and so I also tend to get more satisfying results from that side of the equation. I have no doubt that mileage will differ depending on who you are, what you photograph, and how comfortable you are with your gear. Though as technologies, especially processing/computational technologies mature, I feel very confident that large sensors will gradually go the way of the dodo, in the same way that those big VHS video cameras from the late 70's were eventually replaced by smaller 8mm formats.

It was ever thus. In the old days when I used Olympus, we used Professional labs for printing and the technicians told me that my work was better than all the studios using large format cameras. Today I find that my EM5 ii and em1 iii produce impressive results.

After a busy career I shot 4/3rds professionally for over a decade in real estate, these were heady years when most systems were less than full. At the end 4/3rds would do very well as I could shoot off hand with IS, with simple single off camera flash, keeping deep DoF required on WA lenses. But eventually FF closed this gap to become the more versatile system, given the operator the option to choose. Among my tasking I would have to have frames suitable for street signage posters, and eventually I began to be able to see the difference to my competitors, they could now eat my lunch. The acuity of larger systems is just there and easy to see, I cant help you if you refuse to see it. Whatever I can do in software the FF photographer can do too, the limits are always 2 stops larger. FF without IS would still be slower to use, but they can meet the gap with higher shutter speeds and ISO. Id sooner have IS but only Sony would give me FF and IS Thats the practical case, the latter is that FF is what the market expects to see, either from customers (the middlemen between the end user and the photographer) and for system purchase for the purely rich amateur. If Olympus had gone FF they would still be in business, because the features and software gimmicks didnt cost a lot in size and weight, but their ability to innovate with articulating screen live view, with EVF, and nicely laid out interface would put them in front. Ultimately cameras have a limit to small size or they become impossible to use, and I dont believe cameras get bigger just because of sensor size NB Leica, thats lazy engineering. Reviewers constantly bumped on Oly over sensor size, eventually a manufacturer just have to take notice or forgive sales. I wish the new user well but I suspect Panny will leave them to themselves at which point OM would be wise to be prepared with FF options.

I made a video on this topic a year ago, and I'm so glad to see that someone else sees it like I do...not many people understand the benefits of being able to REALISTICALLY shoot at f1.4 with a low ISO whilst achieving a f2.8 depth of field. Nicely done 👌

Excellent! You really nailed the topic. Anyone considering Micro Four Thirds but are concerned about noise and depth of field should watch this video and the one you did with Jay Dickman.

Great Jimmy. I think you've covered a lot there, and very clearly. One thing I do, which I don't see a lot of others try, is to take multiple high ISO images, of the same thing. ISO noise doesn't normally appear in the same point of the sensor in subsequent images. So, I can take 3 or 5 images of high ISO and then take them into Photoshop, make them into a smart object with alignment of the images (especially if I've done this handheld), then try the blend mode of Median, or Average. This gets rid of most, if not all noise. Only if I've taken one image do I have to worry about AI software. Just thought I'd mention that little tip. Of course it can work on any sensor size, not just M4/3. But, I felt your comments were very good, and constructive, without seeming biased.

As a wildlife photographer (bird and macro), the extra DOF of M43 has been a god-send, and so has DxO Pureraw

Quite great video! Thanks for sharing 🙏🏻 As a former Canon Guy, I have migrated to the M43 systems 🙌🏻 and, I have applied one of the basic pillars of Photography: know your equipment and get the best of it to express your art 😉 I am totally satisfied with no regrets on my Street Photography, Landscape and Wildlife journeys. See ya, blue skies 🤙🏻🍀📸

A very good video base on result you show how close micro fourth third is much closer than FF. I use both systems and I can't say how many time I can tell the difference between the two. But the most bigger advantage is the difference in money spend to buy equivalent equipment. All the micro fourth third cameras and lense are hard to beat base on a performance ratio.

Objective and we'll delivered. I have also found the m43 system relatively easy to adapt to coming from larger/heavier FF kit. I also couldn't afford the equivalent lenses I have for my m43 system. Since film days, the manufacturers have been pushing on an open door with the accepted philosophy that larger is best. It's a long standing belief that is largely true and that helped ensure the commercial success of FF. Olympus, for one, have designed an alternative system (including optics) from the ground up around this smaller sensor and the benefits are unique to the system. FF sensors were much easier to embrace in the early days; to promote a significantly smaller sensor as a worthy alternative back then would have been very difficult. I also find that supporting my work flow with Topaz has rendered the argument for FF a moot point for me. Long live m43!

Very interesting video Jimmy especially what you say about being able to shoot lower ISO and keeping the dynamic range and colour integrity intact. I’d like to see you explain that Olympus cameras are better able to retain highlight detail than many FF systems. I know that I can easily overexpose my EM1-II by 1 stop (probably more) and still recover the highlights and not have to recover shadow detail. While FF users are encouraged to underexpose, we need to encourage Olympus users to overexpose.

I have 3 systems cameras,Fujifilm MF GFX 100s,Sony a1 and OM-1.Several weeks ago I took my Sony a1 with a Sony 600mm f4 lens and my OM-1 with 150-400mm lens.I captured several photos of Vultures with both systems and show the results to my friends no one knew which photos I took with Sony and which ones with the OM-1.I am also using the DXO PureRaw 2 and DXO PhotoLab 6.The portability of 150-400mm with the built in TC of the Olympus lens is something special.I wish one day OM Systems can give us a high mega stacked sensor camera for my BIF photography which will allow me to crop.

Great video. Honest en objective. I do a lot of streetphotography, also in the evening. I use my F1.8 lenses for this. The limitations of an M43 camera in dark conditions have made me a better photographer. I gained a better understanding of light in relation to noise. And how I can best set up my camera. But I don't mind some noise so much. Especially since I usually convert the photo to black and white. While photo editing do a little noise reduction. The advantage of M43 is that you get more depth of field compared to FF when you shoot completely open (F1.8, F1.4 or F1.2). That's important for my style of photography.

Great video and lovely to see your work!!

What a fantastic video, Jimmy. Very interesting and I loved the real world examples. I shoot a lot of interiors on a Canon full-frame system where bokeh isn't so important but the cost of shifting over to the RF lenses is almost insurmountable. I'm currently adapting my entire kit to use the R6 (which is a fantastic camera). I bought a GX9 for my passion projects (street, documentary) last year and absolutely love it. It's had me looking at other M43 cameras and lenses and I'm shocked at the price differences. I'm thinking very seriously about getting a m43 lenses or two to try out on real estate shoots, where I often need a minimal kit. The size difference with M43 would also be nice for events. Thank you again for such a great video.

I shot an indoor volleyball tournament this past weekend, with a 2.8 lens on my m43 system. ISO pushed up to 8000 at times because the lighting of the gyms are pretty bad, but the images are all wonderful. Frankly I’m amazed by what I can get out of m43 systems, after coming from FF - i believed the marketing hype for way too long!

Love your content and perspective. I just got into MFT and I'm enjoying it. I am still using my Nikon APS-C and FF DSLRs, they are great cameras and associated glass, but the Olympus gear I've bought recently (all used in good condition at great prices) has been a TON of fun and its with me more due to portability. You know what they say...the best camera to have is the one that you have on hand...

Very good video, thank you! I will be sticking with my Olympus!!!

I thought you would receive a lot of flak on this video Jimmy, but it is good to see people gladly accept you objective view. A while ago I participated as photographer for the largest estafette run in the world. In total 8000 contestants passed. The event starts at night and I was afraid my simple E-M10 MKII would not perform wel. Indeed I had quite a bit of noise shooting at ISO 3200 and 6400. My lack of equipment was a blessing though because the contestants wore reflecting jackets. I used the on camera flash that I set to half power. Others had large speelights on full power. Their results were all reflection while on my noisy photos much more was visible. For the daytime photos I was surprised to see my photos amongst the best. I used mainly the 40-150mm f2.8 Pro and that helped a lot.

Thanks man! I love the M43 system! (I would never think going back to Full Frame!) Great video!

I made the same observation as you and many other commenters for my hobbyist use. I shoot mainly city architecture at night, handheld - which are dimly lit, but immobile scenes. So I can easily use slow shutter speeds and benefit from both deeper DoF as well as the awesome Oly IBIS. In effect, I get similar noise in my m43 images as on an FF system, which would need higher ISO for a similar looking image; let alone to get sharp results with less effective IBIS on a larger sensor. So, I am enjoying my lighter setup, which gives comparable results and will only get better as noise reduction software is maturing.

As we have seen with the shift from 16Mp to 20Mp in MFT cameras with the 4/3 sensor, the photosites have got smaller, but at the same time the photosites have become more sensitive with less noise. The numbers don't lie. Whilst I was expecting low light to deteriorate, it and the DR actually improved. I think they may be hanging back for a couple of years until sensors like that in the 4/3 Gigijot QIS41 (GJ04122 sensor) with 20,000e well depth, read noise 0.35e and 41Mp become more developed (and with focus areas). Basically that means single photon capture with no noise, DR up the ying yang and ISO off the chart. That tech is already there, it just needs polishing and performance will probably improve still further.

Good comments and observations, as usual. Differing formats have been around for a long time for good reasons. The more experience we have shooting in various venues for various purposes, the more the photographer can come to realize inherent behaviors and either compensate or, if limited by space and shooting distances, assign a different format for that task. As you were good to note, software has also begun to enter the picture in ways that give quite a lot more overlap in what our available choices in formats and focal lengths might turn out to be. For weddings and indoor spaces like architecture the photographer can only stand so close or so far away from the subject; can only include or exclude a given amount of space per mm of focal length. In outdoors, stadiums and sports fields put the photographer in a place where a 2x crop at 200mm f/4 is not going to produce the same separation wanted between players and spectators as a FF crop at 400mm f/2.8. If that's a critical metric, it has to be considered from both cost and quality of work perspectives. Sometimes we are forced to work from a particular distance and then we have to decide what we need to accomplish and what tool will do the best job. Sometimes software will come to the rescue. Having grown up in photography it's been helpful to have an almost intuitive understanding of aperture, focal length, and distance such that format is not even an issue for me other than as a way to know what framing will work best for the venue. Depth of field being a simple mathematical relationship independent of camera format, simplifies things quite a lot when trying to determine the ideal kits for a job.

Awesome video!

What a mature and sophisticated take on comparing M4/3 and full frame from a working professional. I have no patience for amateur or professional detractors of M4/3 who haven't actually used M4/3 regularly. It's so refreshing to see the opposite - some positivity about real-world advantages based on actual experience and results. We've (M4/3 users) had pro-level features in a small, less-expensive, highly durable package for so long, I still don't see a reason to switch to full frame.

This is an excellent video, and I agree with just about everything. The one question I would raise, in defense of full-frame, concerns "crop mode" shooting. If I'm not mistaken, when you shoot a FF sensor in crop mode, you gain the benefit of extra reach and depth of field, but you do *not* lose the benefit of larger pixel pitch (low light capability). You just lose megapixels. For hobbyists, the low-key takeaway from this video might be: if you're tempted by another system that uses a different sensor format, wait until you've really mastered your gear before making a change (you will lose value on the exchange). For m43 shooters concerned about low megapixel landscapes, maybe upgrade to a newer model with greater in-body capabilities re: composite images (pixel shift, high-res mode, etc). For FF hobbyists faced with eye-watering prices for long telephoto prime lenses, open up the menu and find DX mode, super 35, or whatever your brand calls it. If you want a telephoto lens to use just on occasion, and compact size is important, a native aps-c telephoto lens probably costs less than investing in a second system. (TL/DR: learn your gear, first)

Great video, I have the Canon R3 and am thinking of buying the OM-1 with pro lenses, Now about high ISO who cares even with my R3 I still need to use DXO Photolab 6 so no big deal to me, Plus I bet with higher megapixel cameras like the R5, Z9 I bet the high ISO is no more than a half stop better than the OM-1.

I think it's helpful to think of it this way-MFT seems to have more depth of field because we use wider lenses to get similar framing, not because of the size of the sensor. Thanks for this insightful video.

I am totally on your line. I switched to MFT in early 2020 after 16 years with full frame. (First film and then 10 years with Nikon.) Before the switch I compared my 10 years of photography and realised that most of the pictures I like were f4-5.6. The shallowest had f2.5. There is almost no good picture with my 50mm at f1.4... So there was not a single day I missed my Nikon D800 with 36MP. The e-m5 mkIII and the om-1 are now my gear and I was able to afford lenses for my hobby which I never could on full frame. I shoot similar genres like you. And I also print. So up to 30x40cm I can confirm that you will see no difference. And after more than 2 years I also much prefer the 3:4 ratio over 2:3

First, enjoyed the informal style in the ‘extra’ section. I watched this video just after the one on Pro Lenses (produced a few weeks after this) and the rationale aligns nicely. All great points and somewhat aligns with the adage ‘use the right tools for the job’. Fair analysis and enjoyed!

Another great video Jimmy with a very balanced view on the topic, each system have their pros and cons and you just need to decide which is the best for you! Like properly quite a few watching for me it is also Mu43. For what I mainly shoot it does what I need. I have used "full frame" DSLRs 35mm SLRs and medium format and even sheet film cameras and even 110 😀 For the size I print up to and With the software like you also talked about the smaller format is great for me.

I love MFT and still sticking with Olympus. Nice video. Thanks for sharing. Big LIKE!!!

I actually prefer the look of your MFT pictures, because the lower ISO really creates a great dynamic range. Also I seem to prefer the look the awesome lenses create.

Jimmy sorry for being hard on that om5 video. This one is top content 🎉

Hi Jimmy. Great video, examples, and conclusions. Many do not realize that each image sensor has a noise floor, and we control the visibility (image noise) of that noise floor. It is also true that each sensor has a different size noise floor. This explains why we see almost no noise from the Panny S5 and more noise with the Sony A7 II (both 24MP FF cameras). For example, the pixel area on the OM-1 is 21% larger than the new XT5 while Fuji said the SNR is the same. This means the XT5 noise floor is like the XT4 smaller than the OM-1 with its large pixel areas. Why do we need to know this? The right information gives us more control over the image sensor and our image quality. Anyone can get poor IQ with more image noise from ANY camera at ISO1600. It all depends on the exposure mix and how much we saturate the sensor. Combine this with the interesting info in your video, and a new world opens up to M43 photographers. Apologies for me jumping in like this, your video completely inspired me... Siegfried

Thanks so much about this Jimmy! I just recently bought a MFT camera because I wanted to take photography more seriously now. Not gonna lie, I was doubting if I did buy the right camera because of all these videos circulating online. But thanks to people like you who believes in the system, I'm reminded why I bought the camera in the first place. For its size and price.

Great video which shows that advantages and disadvantages of FF and MFT systems are very much contextual and specific to your use case. I know you didn't get into the "size" debate, but although some FF mirrorless bodies are very small these days, the physics of optics will always make FF lenses larger than equivalent MFT lenses, so when you look at you camera and lenses as a system, MFT will almost always be smaller, usually much smaller and lighter. Keep up the good work!

The low light + depth of field requirements is a really challenging situation. I can relate to that with my recent experience taking portraits with Milkyway. The stars are not sharp if focus is not at infinity but with a FF, even at a wide angle 20mm, f/2.8, the subject still has to stand a few meters away to be decently sharp, at which point they appear quite small. I ended up having to shoot 2 photos and blend them. It's a situation I wish I was using a M43 camera. The other situation being M43's awesome stabilization for nighttime portrait. With a flash an full frame camera still needs to maintain a high shutter speed to avoid blurred background, by increasing ISO, which in turn affects the adjustment on flash power and at certain point the flash would be too strong even at 1/128 with ISO 1600. With better stabilization the safe shutter speed can be much lower, and in turn lowers the iso and gives more freedom in flash power adjustment.

Your viewers are predisposed to like micro 4/3rds so they'll agree with you. I'm one of them. I've shot full frame cameras before and loved it. But, I found that I liked the size of the micro four thirds, which are still smaller. I also found that the pro lenses for a thousand dollars are amazing and f/1.2 gives the minimum practically usable aperture, meaning I picked it again when I was looking this year again at going into a new system. To outfit to what I needed using used lenses, it costs $4000. Full frame cost minimum $10k, and that was shooting _Sigma_. So I picked up a few more pro lenses and a used E-M1.3 and continued on. Buying used has enabled me to consider switching formats every few years as I don't lose much money as I buy and sell. Been doing that for a long time. And every 3 years or so since 2008 I upgrade my cameras, and look at all the systems. I picked four thirds on price and portability in 2013. I picked it again in 15. I picked it again in 2020. I picked it again this month. Same reasons each time, though admittedly in 2013 it was much much more based on portability and I shot Canon for higher quality and Nikon in studio, but haven't bought a Canon lens since then. For the last 3 years, since Olympus came out with such high end pro lenses, it's been more and more of a no brainer. However, I _no longer_ do pro photography regularly. I'm going on a vacation in a couple weeks. I am going to bring my E-M1. I am going to bring 3 lenses: a 17mm 1.2, a 20mm 1.7 and a 70-300. I'm also going to bring my Panasonic GM1, which is the size of a deck of cards. This enables me to, if I want, put the 17mm or 70-300 in a jacket pocket and the GM1 with 20mm 1.7 in a pants pocket and go out with no camera bag, but also have full range and high end body with no redundancy and extra lenses. Shooting gigs professionally in the past few years, I've largely rented Canon actual SLRs per gig. I know them, I love them. However, in the past two lockdowny years, with the advent of high end pro lenses and quality 20 megapixel sensors, I've shot professionally on micro 4/3rds as well, and that's actually really nice for the exact reasons you covered. I set the 12-40 at 2.8, the 17 at 1.2 and I shoot the 45 for portraits at 1.8. I almost never have to switch lenses, and I can carry 3 bodies and it's easy. I don't charge as much anymore since I don't use an assistant and therefore my coverage and lighting ability has gone down, but I'm getting all the shots I've technically been able to get with full frame spending less than half the money and half the size and not fucking around with aperture unless I'm taking specific shots down to maybe 7.1 but that's only a couple times per shoot at best.

Thanks Jimmy for an open and honest review. I am a m43 user and own both Lumix G9 and the an OM-1. When the GH6 came out with its 25Mp sensor I was excited ...but this is a camera that was quite geared to compete in the video market...I was very drawn to the larger pixel sensor carrot. I decided to go with the OM-1 in the end and with their 20Mb pixel sensor. I have had no regrets! As you say there are advantages and disadvantages for both systems. And each to their own. For me the Olympus OM-1 oozes quality and I’m glad I chose this camera.I recently purchased DxO Raw2 which for those very rare occasions sort out my slightly noisy photos. Easy and cost effective!

Brilliant!

Totally Agree! I have the same experience using different camera systems! M43 is a wonderful Professional tool and the most fun system to use!

I have never felt limited by micro 4/3 in my photography due to senor size. Yes high ISO is not as good, as you have said, but I don't do surveillance. I traveled by air quite a bit for pleasure & work & even though full frame body sizes are much smaller today the lenses are not. I was a Canon shooter for many years but when I lived in Uruguay for a while & had already switched to the original OMD I saw many people visiting with there full frame cameras & large lenses & I knew I had made the right decision to switch to micro 4/3. My images never suffered from the switch! I use DXO & that definitely is an equalizer.

Just last week I photographed an event that occurred in poor lighting, but I still needed a lot of depth of field, which is so often the case with candid event photography. My MFT set-up did OK in the low light, and a larger sensor would not have given me as much depth of field. Real world circumstances are what really matter.

In the Image quality section, @4:44 your second shooter, if he wanted to match your depth of field, doesn't have to be at 3.5, he needs to be at 2.5, so he/she is opting for more depth of field. Plus, he could easily shoot this at a lower ISO and then raise the shadows in post, because FF tends to produce less noise when pulling up shadows. As for the high ISO section, even in your example, that skin @8:15 looks so weird to me - like rubber. I've purchased this high ISO software before and the results for me are all over the map. Sometimes it's fine, often it's not, and it adds a whole level to the workflow not to mention it's unpredictable. If you've had better results, then terrific. But I would suggest wedding photographers tread carefully as your results may vary - and how picky you and your clients are. I went from 2 years of shooting weddings with Olympus/OM. And then three shoots ago, my most recent wedding being this past Friday, switched to FF and yeah, it's better in every way. I didn't have to take my flash out as early, the low light images are cleaner, the resolution is higher, I can crop in if I wanted to. My carry, and this is specific to me, is LIGHTER than with M43. As for financial, I don't know man. It depends on one's genre, work, style and region. I shoot weddings, and I use primes. The OM-1 with 25 1.2 is more expensive in Canada than the Sony A7iii with 50 2.5 G. Or you can get the A7iv and it's just $100 more with that same lens combo. The G line is $899 here in Canada and the 1.2 Olympus Pro are hundreds more. i.e. even if you were to get the more expensive A7iv, as you round out the primes, you're saving hundreds per lens compared to the Olympus 1.2 As someone who has actually shot with the G and 1.2, yeah....that G is a really nice lens and is easily comparable. I'm really not trying to troll you here, bud. I found your channel when I invested in M43. I especially loved your older videos. I know you're an ambassador, they put your face on Mark 5 box, and more than that, the brand means a lot to you - that's totally cool. I get it. I have zero brand loyalty - lol. I really don't care in the slightest. I see these things as tools for my business. I just think if someone is getting into photography on the pro side, that they should weigh things out carefully before investing heavily in M43 as I did. If we're talking the hobbyist, then I suggest people get an EM5 Mark iii and call it a day. That camera is terrific and is a lot of fun for everyday life stuff.

People often misunderstand equivalence for lenses for smaller sensors. If you have for example 25mm F2, you will get the look of 50mm F4, but at the same time have light capturing ability of 25mm F2, which in low light situations translates to getting sharper image on a longer lens all while letting in more light than this lens would. So 25mm F2.0 would be (assuming it has T-stop of 2.0): 25mm F2.0 (FF equivalent 50mm F4.0 T2.0) Basically the longer the reach you need the better it gets for crop because you get just as much light, but with longer reach and better range for acceptable focus. Also on top of that 1.4 and even larger max aperture glass is easier to produce for smaller sensors, so most people will be able to buy glass that gets through more light more easily for smaller sensors, then making it easier to shoot on lower ISO with sort enough shutter speeds. In the end what you need depends on what and how you shoot things, when I was starting with photography I got scared into Full Frame because I was scared about low light without understanding shit about sensors or glass, and seems most YT photographers seems to just repeat things they've heard.

Interesting video and I agree with your assessment. I photographed high school football this season and the lighting was not always optimal. Night games required high ISO and wide open aperture on my EM5ii with 40-150 f2.8 Pro. I was amazed at the image quality compared to other full-frame photographer at the game. Even though I sometimes had to de-noise, the quality of photos relative the the smaller gear is a win for me every time. I just need to upgrade to EM1iii or OM-1 and I'll be all set.

I use a Sony A7 (with fast primes) for my landscapes, from mid-November through late January, if I know I'll be shooting in low light. The rest of the time I use my EM1ii. I do an A3 calendar every year and nobody has yet commented on the differences between the MFT and FF shots. In fact, I'm planning on getting rid of the Sony and buying a couple of fast lenses (possibly the new Sigma f1.4 series if they are out in time!) for next year.

All the points mentioned are spot on. There's too much comparisons when its about adapting to your needs. M43 can do a great job just like APS-C and FF.

I really like that point you made about the full frame user needing to stop down to retain field of view. I shoot with APSc the majority of the time, and I find the largely blown out background fo Full Frame to be a hindrance when I want to still capture the scene with only a little bit of separation from my subject

Thank you for this great and - as a mft user - pleasing video. By the way: How awesome is the orange setting including the perfect match in color of Jimmys base cap with the curtain 😂

Great format good to get away from just gear reviews. After all it should be about the photography. Excellent work.

I think your last point is the best. Price is M43's biggest advantage.

Great video and in the real world m43 is very capable lighter and cheaper and 99% of images are viewed on smart phones , tablets and laptops using social media apps that throw away alot of the pixels anyway.

i agree wtih you i love my om system and what it can do for me

I use DXO Pureraw 2 in "DeepPrime" mode and I now take my .ORF files and run them through to DNG's and actually delete the ORF files. I've come to trust it that much. However, I turn off the "Global Sharpening" in Pureraw -- to me it's too agressive. I shoot with older OM-D cams (Pen F, E-M5 II, and an E-M5 III) and it's a revelation what Pureraw does for me. I've also gone many years back in my catalog looking for shots I kept that I never used due to noise and recovering them. That's actually a lot of fun to see what "could have been" and maybe posting them somewhere for fun. Edit: And I forgot to say, great video! I just got one of my grandsons into photography with m43 and I recommended your channel to him.

Great video. What is that orange laptop ❤️? Is it a cover or did you have it painted. Do you do all your professional work on a screen that sise I would have thought you had a massive monitor maybe orange to 😀

Jimmy, I’d love to see you do some print size comparisons ( up to 20”x30”) with different sensor sizes. Have pros and non pros see if they can tell the differences in your video! It would be funny I bet!

Having 100S, Z7II, 7r4A, R5 and MFT means MFT are also important especially mating with F1.2 pro lenses. All pictures out of them are wonderful and beautiful!

I shoot with Olympus OM-D E-M1 mk3 and 12-100 f4, 100-400mm f5-6.3, 17 f1.8, 45 f1.8 and I'm an affiliate with skylum LuminarNEO and their noiseless AI and their other plug ins work superb and have won a few competition and featured in a couple of magazines 2 of which want to do a full article. Be disabled and wheelchair-bound the Olympus systems compact is fantastic. Unfortunately I am not in a position to be able to try out or afford full-frame or APS-C so can't comment on them. Hopefully my channel grows and can start reviewing other brands and more importantly for me the newer Omsystem cameras. Really enjoyed again jimmy

I'd love to use one of these modern denoisers, but Topaz turns my RAWs (from the G90) red and dark, whereas DxO, even if it's much better in retaining detail, has little customisation and oversharpens.

I have owned 1", APSC, FF & MF sensor cameras. My current system is MFT due to size and weight. DXO software has greatly 'leveled the playing field' in terms of sensor ISO performance. I was holding onto my MF Fuji GFX system for 1 specific use case: S-DOF and high MB pixel. That was until Olympus/OMS created "hi-res shot" feature and I was introduced to Voigtlander lenses. The "hi-res" features allows me to obtain greater than 25mb+ image files for static subjects (even hand held) and Voigtlander lenses offers native MFT mount with apertures at f0.95 (1.9 FF equivalent) and even f0.8 (1.6 FF equivalent). That enabled me to obtain the S-DOF I needed to sell my MF gear using MFT almost exclusively. MFT offers a very large native lens selection from Panasonic, Leica, Olympus/OMS, Voigtlander, Sigma, Tamron, Kowa, and Meike. Because the sensor is smaller than traditional APSC/FF/MF, you can adapt all of your existing lenses to the system regardless what that system is. Is it possible to obtain the shot with MFT? - yes. It comes down to lens selection. Sometimes you need to use a lens outside of Panasonic or Olympus/OMS in order to obtain that look/feel of FF or MF

10:20 St Dunstan's Church. I used to work round the corner and would sometimes eat my lunch there. I was often the only person there.

20mp in any sensor format is sufficient for ninety seven percent of use cases. Coming from FF, I have fully committed to µ4/3, and practically own the majority of M.Zuiko Pro glass, a couple of Lumix G Leica Zooms (1.7), and a couple of Leica primes too. If I were to acquire the same lenses in FF, I would have spent three times as much. Not to mention, there are a couple of lenses that have no real equivalent in FF. Zero regrets, while producing results as professional as anything else, with Lumix GH cameras too… Plus, lenses are more important than the camera anyways… 🤔

I agree with some points you make Jimmy, but not with all. With full frame I can always stop down a lens when I need mor depth of field. But with mFT I am limited if I need less to isolate the main motiv from the background. Yes I nee higher ISO's by stopping down, but this is acceptable because I have a two stops advantage compared to mFT.

I totally agree with Jimmy being honest about the performance of the high iso performance of the OM-1. I use both system for different needs. I shoot event using a Canon Eos RP and the workflow for me will be simpler as the high iso is better and use less time to edit. I can definitely get by using my OM-1 but you need more skills and time to process images for those dimly lit shots. But for wildlife and everyday things I like m43 all the way because the lenses are so much smaller and much more fun to shoot. I love my Pana Leica 9mm f1.7. Tiny and powerful.

Nice clip and good comments Jimmy. For most of my wildlife photos OM System is great. However, when trying to shoot at a very high shutter speed on a bird in the distance and subsequently having to crop I have the inevitable problems. My friend uses a Sony A1 with 100-400mm and x1.4 TC with better results. At 50 megapixels heavy cropping is not a problem!! One other issue is tracking birds in fast flight. Whilst I get better reach I also suffer from a narrow field and have difficulty getting the bird in frame using 1000mm ff equivalent. Easier to keep the bird in frame with 560mm ff and then heavy cropping is not such an issue. Like you say - different cameras and systems for different jobs. Do you still intend to do that evening photo walk in London or have I missed it??. Peace ✌️✌️

I am currently using OM1, EM5.3 and agree with most parts of your video, noise can be fixed with latest software. My main concern is that in order to achieve better subject separation you the f1.2 primes or 75mm f1.8 that are too expensive and the prices are getting higher. I believe the f1.2 primes should be cheaper to attract professionals and advanced amateurs otherwise you can buy a 200 euro FF lens and achieve even shallower DOF.

Photolab 6 is in a league of its own. Note that the new engine is not yet in Pure Raw 2. I have both. Lightroom is a joke, the best editor but the worst raw developer. Anybody using Lightroom is leaving a few stops of everything on the table. And many do. Somebody using FF with Lightroom exclusively has no sensor advantage vs somebody using m43 and DxO or Topaz. I have both FF and m43. There are some things I can only get with FF, for example enough dof control with a 28-75mm zoom lens. I can easily do beautiful portraits with the 28-75mm Tamron, but on m43 there is no standard zoom that’s good enough for dof control. Then again, there’s nothing on FF to give the reach, versatility, quality, size and cost of m43 long tele like the Panaleica 100-400. I really hope m43 continues to develop, it’s a marvelous system that can do things other systems just can’t. Having 2 systems m43 and FF is amazing versatility I highly recommend.

I had some tests I did with a Canon R5 as well as the new Sony A7R5 assuming the image quality would be considerably superior on the FF. What ended up happening it was revealed that when all were properly used the OM-1 images can and did indeed equal the venerable Sony. It went back. The focus capabilities of the OM-1 are so close to Sony's it's not even an argue point. I have 6 of their Pro glass and man are they all sharp.

About the sensor size and noise... Not exactly true, i am afraid as 25mm F1,4 equals 50mm F1.4 - there is no more or less light. the sensor size and pixel surface is not the cause. Usually the light-sensitive part of a pixel is about 1/4 of total pixel surface. Most Fullframes use CMOS sensors, but M43 systems use Live MOS a.k.a. NMOS. This difference makes much more impact on noise than light-sensitive surface. But defnitely thanks for pointing out that in M43 I dont need to close the aperture for better DOF. Its almost impossible to explain that thats how you can gain better ISO and thus reduce the disadvantage.

I have used all formats and I have to say the size I am most drawn towards is APSc; the only modern format that was spawned by the film industry. Why did I sell my MFT kit? I am 71 and I have most of my cameras going back to my 1964 Halina 35x and my father's 1950s Leicas. Well MFT is uniquely disadvantaged in adapting legacy film lenses (and now digital lenses), I have a lot of legacy Nikon plus a D610 body. So, my Panasonic GX9 was replaced by Sony A6500 & A6000 cameras. I own a full frame A7II but I mostly only use compact primes on it; I have to be driven to put a big zoom on it. I hate large lenses with too much glass. I really get Fuji making APS and Medium Format cameras; full frame seems a bit antiquated and pointless. I just dont like legacy cameras so chose Sony instead. If you want a big sensor for commercial work get MF. As to quality issues; people should get a life. How can you enjoy taking photos worrying about that nonsense; I can find amazing lenses in all formats. I still havent found a better lens than the APSc Leica X113 23mm f1.7 which I regret selling now. I still miss my Olympus 17mm f1.8. Have fun ;-)

Nice pictures

May I ask, on 6:49, what lens did you use? 18mm at f/0.95!

I’m at this point in my 50 year career. I have a Nikon, Fuji and Olympus system ( EM1 Mkiii). Olympus lenses are fantastic. Nikon body ergonomics are the best. Fuji colours are excellent particularly film simulations. Nikon = night time sports. Olympus everything else especially video. Fuji probably in the firing line for sale. As you say when 99% of images are for the web what’s the point of lugging gargantuan bodies and lenses. Nikon flashes like the SB700 are still streets ahead of anything else. I have a Godox 860iii and still cannot get it to accurately zoom in sync with the Olympus lenses. it’s the Olympus kit that will stay in the long run. If I want 100cm prints I use my Fuji GX680 film camera. Thank you and good night.

The problem is people just calculate equivalence, look at price and go from there. For example, someone will look at something like the Tamron FE 28-200 f/2.8-5.6 and conclude they can replace a bunch of m4/3 primes for cheap. Mathematically that may be true, but it ignores things like sharpness wide open, aperture for autofocus, rendering, handling, etc.

I just traded in all my full frame and crop sensor Canon equipment for an Olympus e-m1x. I have been using fully frame for years and I wanted a change. I wanted to shoot more birds and other wild life and the My eos r was not able to keep up with what I was shooting. I will be getting the Om1 some time next year.

Completely agree. In fact MFT is really a complete system today. I also used FF. For years now I've only been on MFT with OM1 and pro fixed and zoom lenses, anything is possible. Even in low light. And then that little noise disappears with Topaz Denoise even at 6,400 ISO. Finally the portability, the feeling, the speed, the reliability is unique. Customers? they can't even tell if the photos are from one system or the other. They pay because the image works, not if the sensor with which it was taken is large or small.

Very well done video. The photos you and your second shooter took were quite nice! I recently attempted a portrait shoot with nothing but my 12-40 f2.8 Pro. The output is nice but I definitely struggled with the inability to get shallow DOF. I think that most of the issues with DOF control are solved by the 1.2 lenses but they are quite expensive. I think if I did more portrait shooting I would probably pick up a Nikon Z5 with the 50mm and 85mm 1.8S lenses. They are optically superior to the Oly Pro lenses, allow for shallower DOF, and I can buy both for the same price as a single 45mm f1.2. That said, I love m43 as a system. After processing my files with DXO, I can't tell any difference between them an my Nikon APS-C files. I also happily shoot into crazy ISO levels because of DXO. A FF system will definitely be heavier and bigger. The Nikon 50mm 1.8S is almost a pound and around triple the size of the Lumix Leica 25mm 1.4. The DOF is only a bit shallower, too. Ultimately, if I gave you a cell phone you'd take better photos than me with a Z9. Gear matters in that it allows us to achieve our artistic vision. I am trying to spend less time caring about gear and more time on improving my skills, since that makes a much bigger difference. Thanks for your video and example photos!

As usual..excellent video...but but...back in the day we learned how to judiciously use small flash...wallah ...no more high ISO... no more noise problem.. Even. most weddings...the Priest will say when flash is allowed etc. 😎

I'm not a pro, although I will work for money if offered. I shoot live music on London's indie and underground scene, so there's not a lot of money there even if I was a pro. Live music photography is very much the preserve of the "full-frame" camera (surely all digital cameras are full frame?), where there is very much a macho "size matters" vibe. To be part of the gang, your camera has to have a battery grip and fast zooms. I'll admit I was in that club for many years, but as the years passed I found the weight was getting harder to carry. During the pandemic, when there was no live music, I decided to look for a lighter (and affordable) mirrorless solution. Having shot Olympus film cameras for nearly all my photographic life, I made the switch Olympus M4/3. Of course, I was worried about noise (and not the sort that ear plugs protect me against), mostly because I had become conditioned into believing that all photos had to be as clean as possible, even though I shoot B&W film pushed at least 2 stops. But I have found that M4/3 delivers shots that match what I used to get with my Canon 6D at ISO 3200. If anything they were sharper, thanks to IBIS and the Zuiko glass. And I've had a lot more positive feedback on the images than I did with the shots on Canon (and I was previously using fast Canon lenses). The thing with live music is, most of the time I'm shooting under terrible LED lighting, and a lot of the time it is not white light and often RGB primaries due to lazy lighting operators over which I have no control (although some will change it to what I ask for). Any sensor is going to struggle under those conditions. The advantage of not being a pro is, if the lighting is really bad I don't have to shoot. I might have pushed a "full-frame" camera to silly ISO levels to get images, but they wouldn't have been great. Bad lighting is bad lighting, no matter what format you use. On a different note, I just got the Leica 9mm f/1.7 last week and already shot a couple of gigs with it, and it's fantastic. I can't think of anything that would match it on any other format. I took it out yesterday when I went shooting fungi, and its ultra close focussing got some very interesting perspectives. It was money well spent. I can't see myself going back to a 35mm sensor system (apart from having invested too much in new M4/3 lenses). If I needed to go bigger, I'd jump to the Fuji GFX series, otherwise M4/3 works perfectly for all my needs.

Can you compare apsc vs m43?

what price for Dxo and how it compare to topaz as got most topaz stuff so woundering if i do still need to get Dxo

Nice to see you use the m4/3 gear in your professional setting Jimmy. I would love to see more similar videos. I know it's a tough slog for the "little guy" because of the brainwashing from the big FF companies. I also use PureRAW and I too am blown away from what it can do. It would be nice if you showed how a PureRAWed m4/3 photo compares against a native FF image in high ISO. Also, have you done a video explaining your colour grading process? The colours look fantastic.

Once you apply noise reduction to raw files, it takes same time to manipulate raw files from either a 4/3 in sensor and a full frame sensor. 😀

Full frame lenses in general are too heavy and expensive if you want all the pro feature like weather sealing. Look at all the RF L series glass, I can get a whole m43 system with one L series glass. It is way too expensive for most people.

Hi interesting and very true i have used 43 cameras and know you are right about the depth of field, however I like high mega pixel count available in full frame. I know a new high megapixel 43 camera is now available id like to try it.

Great insights as usual. One thing I like with my Nikon V1 - one inch sensor- is the great DOF I get. I don't always want shallow DOF I think with software, whatever it can do for M4/3 it can also do for FF. Nice aside on the small rig remote AF wheel, segues beautifully (if I don't say so myself!) into another aside - I'm thinking of investing in the 3 legged thing tripod, Billy 2. Has it stood the test of time O.K? Nothing falling apart etc?

I cannot understand how you can have the satisfaction of using the M43. I understand the advantages: weight, price, etc. But the photo quality is incomparable. I have worked with all systems (m43 - APS-C - FF) and I have no doubts about the quality of photos with FF. And if you want to edit the photos, all the weakness of the M34 is immediately visible.

10:37 this one is very cool 👍

I understand that the smaller size (cropped) of the M4/3 would produce a smaller (cropped) image sensor but I don't understand why the light sensitivity of each pixel is different from those of a full frame sensor. Are M4/3 and full frame sensors cut from the same material?

Do you have a photo printer Jimmy? Maybe interesting to learn about paper sizes etc for microfourthirds

I have problems with the groups. Usually just one person is in focus. If I open up the aperture enough for all to fit in the depth-of-field, the background and the whole picture is like done with a cameraphone.

​Such a great video! The comparison shots do illustrate the advantages of M43 over FF in ISO penalty to achieve deeper depth of view.

I looked into other systems (and I do have a Sony A7 alongside my Olympus m43 cameras), but I haven't found something that would give me what I get with m43 for a similar price. Not mentioning size and weight. I even bought a 16 MP model (E-M10II) alongside my Pen F - and find myself using it more often than the 20 MP model (that I use mainly as an 80 MP film scanner ;-)) …

Can you imagine that I left my Nikon Z9 home and brought my OM-1 for a wildlife photography assignment yesterday where mobility is key ? I had to cover a lot of distance in an unknown location where the road was muddy and rough so I couldn’t bring a tripod or any extra equipment plus it was raining. So the OM-1 wad perfect for it and I still got some useful footage with it. The only thing I miss was the 4K 120 p with the Z9 and the CAf with the OM-1 does not seem to be as reliable ? Maybe I need to tweak the sensitivity of the autofocus a bit😮?