MFT vs. FF Wildlife Photography Comparison 

Nice video, I have the Canon R3 which I just love and as a wildlife photographer I use it with the RF 100-500 f7.1 and I also have the OM-1 with the M.Zuiko 150-400 which is amazing, Now ok my R3 has much better ISO performance but I still use Lightroom AI denoise so no big deal for me. Now about the DOF I get the same DOF with my f4.5 than my f7.1 I really see no difference but as far as the rest for the price the OM-1 has features that my 6k R3 doesn't have and the detail with the OM-1 and 150-400 is incredible.

I thought this was a comparison of two different camera systems? But in the end it's crazy, there will always be alternative to full frame, and they will have their advantages, but in my experience FF will always do as good with the added flexibility of high res, and composition. One thing I found moving form crop to FF is that the later takes no prisoners. too slow on the shutter and it's going to be deleted. Thanks for posting.

Thanks so much for sharing another wonderful video like always and entertaining, keep up with the awesome content 🐦👍🤗

Interesting comparison and some great points about composition!

I am a beginner photographer and I have a Panasonic Lumix G7. Please suggest a good budget telephoto lens for wildlife photography.

Just to keep things real, and not to nit-pick, but for bird shots MFT should be the hands down winner over FF, assuming a similar quality lens. This just comes down to simple arithmetic. For a similar class of lens, MFT lenses produce higher resolution per mm than FF lenses. For top end lenses, you're looking at 80-90 lp/mm with MFT as opposed to 50-60 lp/mm with FF. You can make up for that with more real estate in mm since FF has 23mm of height and MFT only 14mm. But for bird photography you're invariably reach limited which means you'll need to crop the FF image. That eliminates the more real estate, leaving the MFT image with higher IQ. Studio work of course would be totally different, In this case IQ is going to come down to the lens and lighting. Not the sensor, and certainly not the size of the sensor. What leads people astray is thinking that shooting FF lenses with APS-C bodies is similar to shooting APS-C lenses with APS-C bodies or MFT lenses with MFT bodies. Totally different. Using FF lenses with APS-C bodies will always give you a lower IQ image because you have the same lp/mm from the same lens but fewer mm. However, shooting with APS-C lenses on an APS-C body like Fuji or MFT lenses on a MFT body is fundamentally different. Fuji APS-C lenses deliver more resolution per mm than FF lenses. which means if you have to crop the FF image to the size of the APS-C image the Fuji APS-C image will have higher IQ. Your idea that IQ or resolution can be measured in MP is totally misguided. This is obvious if you think about it. You'll get the same MP when shooting with a poor quality lens as with a high quality lens but the IQ will be totally different. Having used the top end Canon equipment I'm confident that the OM 150-400mm is the best wildlife lens you can buy that doesn't need a wheelbarrow, and when shooting fast moving subjects the OM-1 with subject detect will give you more in-focus images than any other body. I don't know of any 35mm system that can compete with this setup. Note that in these shots focus wasn't (or shouldn't have been) an issue, so a big part of the advantage of one body over another was lost. The IQ would only come down to the lens, and the appeal of the image would only come down to composition. In other words, giving your cousin "the better" equipment didn't end up with him having "the better" equipment.

Good video. I would add to what you said by suggesting we really need to get to know our cameras to really understand their strengths and weaknesses rather than constantly switching kit in search of the perfect camera. Since you started out with the Lumix G9, as I remember, it would be interesting to see you shoot with the OM-1 in a video and talk about what differences you discover and workarounds or approaches, if any, between using the OM and your current full-frame gear. It's easy to be jealous of big primes and mega-sensor cameras but I still favor light-weight gear and the flexibility of a good zoom, not to mention the lower cost of MFT. Given your current level of experience, how green do those FF pastures look now compared to when you started out?

Hey Jeremy, could you pherhaps make a Comparison between the G9 and the OM1? I know the OM1 has better Autofocus and is faster. But i want to know how big is the Difference in terms of Image Quality.. And yes i know, it's also a question of the lens.. 😅🤔😊

Are all images unedited? I see a huge colour difference in the Willot pictures which stands out the most for me in that situation. Ofcourse there is also a difference in quality of composition there, but the colours just really stood out for me. For me the photographer will always be more important than the gear. A good photographer can make a decent picture with a shitty camera, but a shitty photographer cant make a decent picture with good gear without a good amount of luck. I liked the video man, keep doing what you are doing.