Came from apsc, then “upgraded” to full frame. After years of that I found myself in M43 and couldn’t be happier. Olympus has one of the best and sharpest lenses in the market today and in a small package.
Same here... And nobody can really see a difference when I show my photos. The Toneh can be had also on M43 as I have the 17 and 25 F1.2 PROs They come very close to the the Nikon 50mm F1.8s.... very close.
Shot at a wedding recently using a full frame and a m4/3 camera. Anyone who saw the pictures never asked ‘What camera did you use?’ It’s about capturing emotions and telling a story.
💀💀💀try to compare full frame vs m43 in low light or higher iso or resolution, its huuuuuuuuge difference even om1 photos looks like from 10 years old DSLR compared to SONY mirrorless for example, its not even question how big difference is it, try to print 1m2 photo from M43 and full frame even 24 max and you see that diference
Exactly on the mark: "Anyone who saw the pictures never asked 'what camera did you use'" . This is EXACTLY the point we are taking photos not measure sensors.
@@frantisekjavorsky8172 On the other side, lenses are a stop or so faster on average on M43 vs full frame. You need 2 stops to balance out the different sensor sizes, but still good enough.
In reality, if you do a great job while taking your picture, you would hardly need any post-processing. Raw files are huge and sometimes heavier to work with, they can boggle your computer or whatever device you use. The idea is to try and get your images right the first time
I have been using M43 for about 15 years now. Today I bought my first full frame camera. The Sony a7c ii with the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 G2. I am very impressed by the image quality of this combo and how far it can be pushed in Lightroom. That being said, I will never sell my Lumix GX8. Still absolutely love this thing. I will keep using it for tele (full frame tele is just too large and expensive for me) and also just for fun. Btw, I guessed right without cheating.
Hope you are enjoying all the full frame goodness that the A7C ii has to offer. Didn't you have concerns over having to get all new lenses for your new Sony E-mount system, because they aren't compatible with Panasonic/Lumix's L-mount? A question to the micro 4/3 shooters is on the crop that is introduced when shooting handheld stabilized 4K video. While many manufacturers offer good stabilization in 4K video, the crop, which decreases the field of view, seems to be an earmark of just about every MFT camera I've seen in my limited research. What is the GX8 crop and stabilization like vs the A7C ii in 4K stabilized video?
Hmm I have the G9 mk II and there is not any crop unless I activate it. The stabe is great without crop but of course the crop is cool to have if I want to be moving around while filming. It's one of the strong points of MFT. My Canon R5 is not as good.
little correction about the depth of field thing : crop factor doesn't really affect the depth of field. It has an indirect impact on it, but there is much important stuff to consider when trying to figure out where the depth of field even comes from. There is only really 2 factors for depth of field : focus distance and aperture diameter (note I didn't say aperture number). Nope, even the focal length has very little play in this. To keep it simple, the wider the aperture gets, the shallower the DoF gets. And the closest you focus your lens, the shallower your DoF gets as well. practical example : if you have a 50mm f/2 lens, that lens has an aperture of about 25mm. If you want a micro four thirds to match the exact framing and depth of field, you will need to match the angle of view, but you will also need to match the aperture diameter. So angle of view gets matched with a 2.0x crop factor : so 25mm lenses should do the trick. Now if you get a 25mm f/2 (to match the exposure) then you get a DoF that is about twice as deep as the one you had on your full frame camera with your 50mm lens, because now your aperture diameter is not 25mm, but 12.5mm. You need to match the aperture diameter to get the same DoF at the same focus distance, meaning you need a 25mm aperture diameter on your 25mm lens : you need a 25mm f/1.0 But as it stands, the depth of field always comes from the lens and the focusing distance, NEVER from the sensor itself. You can achieve the exact same DoF on a 1" camera as a FF camera using the exact same lens... you will just have to deal with the much tighter framing. Most of the time, you end up taking a step back, but then you're focusing further away, which increases the DoF. In short, you should really think about what lens you're using before even thinking about the sensor size. If you start with the sensor size, you will take the 18,5mm lens as a "50mm equivalent", while it fact it's still very much an 18mm rendering with the angle of view of a 50mmm, and you might end up being dissapointed. The only way the sensor impacts depth of field is because you will need wider lenses with smaller aperture diameters (again, not f numbers).
I should make it dependent on a lens which system I want to use? Yes, professionals can do that to achieve their "picture look". I don't care, I buy a lens with a higher speed and everything is fine. If someone wants to shoot with 85 mm 1.8 on full format, then I shoot with 56 mm 1.4 on APS-c - that's perfectly adequate for my purposes and I save a lot of money, a lot of weight and a lot of size.
@@Joh146 everything when it comes to photography is down to user preference. No need to be pedantic about it. That applies to full frame users mocking crop users for their inferior sensors, that also applies to crop sensor users mocking full frame users for their "more expensive" system. I personally saved a lot of money by going full frame instead of staying with Fuji APS-C. To each their own.
µ4/3's name is actually totally unrelated from the aspect ratio. µ4/3 takes it's name from the older 4/3 DSLR mount, just micro because of the shorter flange distance. That standard does not specify any aspect ratio only a diagonal size, so a 4/3 sensor can be 3:2 as long as it's around 22mm in diagonal. 4/3 stands for 4/3", but the sensor isn't 4/3", it's from an even older standard for video camera tubes where a sensor that size would need a 4/3" glass tube. TL;DR µ4/3 naming is cursed.
And also isn't it called micro FOUR THIRDS? That pretty much indicates that it's not about the aspect ratio, since if would then be micro four by three or something like that. And btw regarding the video camera tubes, isn't that also how the so called 1inch sensor also got its name?
@@oneeyedphotographer I'm sorry, I don't understand what are you correcting me on. I was just point out that the name is FOUR THIRDS and not FOUR by THREE which it would have been if it was about the aspect ratio.
Micro Four Thirds is the name of an official registered trademark. Many companies are contributing to this open format. Well, as long as they pay I suppose. The name µ43 is something that is made up by some enthousiast at the internet, but none of the companies involved actually uses this. It's MFT if they want something shorter. There are many different sensor sizes. Full frame, APS-C and 1-inch sensors have an aspect ratio of 3:2. All the others, including the ones for medium format have an aspect ratio of 4:3. Many think that Micro Four Thirds derives from the aspect ratio, but it comes from the old tv-industry. It means 4/3 of an inch but does not relate to 4/3 of an inch at all. At least not as far as it concerns the measurements of the sensor. We'd better use millimeters.
Comunque amo la proporzione 4/3. Sono anche felice che viene usata anche nei sensori più piccoli. Quando stampavo matrimoni usavo il formato 30x40cm negli album libri, che trovo più godibile in una foto verticale. Tra l'altro con soli 5mp della Olympus E-1, avevo prestazioni superiori della pellicola 35mm che usavo in precedenza.
As you said, the most important decision factor is the type of photography you mainly do. For exanple bulk and weight is very important if you are a travel photographer.
@@velvetvideo that’s pretty much only the Lumix 10-25 and 25-50 f1.7 lenses and you really only use those if you’re trying to get close to the dof of full frame. This comment is nullified if you’re prioritising size and weight, which is where M4/3 has a sizeable advantage over full frame. As someone who owns both and uses both for different use cases m4/3 is significantly smaller and makes it fantastic for travel and adventure work. My 12-35 f2.8 is less that half the weight and size as my full frame sigma 24-70 f2.8 and don’t even start on the 35-100 vs 70-200. The biggest difference you’ll find is in super telephotos my 100-400 on full frame is bigger than my 100-400 on M4/3, it’s actually smaller than most 70-200 f2.8 FF lenses but my M4/3 is better built than my full frame version and also gives the equivalent FoV of 200-800 compared to full frame. To get a 200-800 not only would I be looking at thousands of dollars but I’d also would be considerably bigger and heavier meaning I wouldn’t be able to walk around as easily or handhold as easily.
@@jockturner1547 Equivalent lenses are equally big / heavy for FF and crop sensor. Especially longer FL does not provide any advantage for design to get smaller lens size due to need to cover smaller image circle. Comparing 2.8 lens for both sensor sizes is nonsense, because bigger sensor with the same F number produce cleaner result due the bigger photosites. Thus cmparing FF vs m4/3 then you need compare size of 10-25/1.7 to for example 20-70/4 Sony. The only differnce is that nobody produce such slow lenses for fullframe to match already slow lenses for m4/3 (2.8). If you would like to comapre design of 100-400 for m4/3 and FF compare with Canon for RF - Canon is lighter. If you want to compare equivalent FoV then there is no such slow zoom for FF thus the closest offering is Canon 800/11 which is in the same ball park in terms of size/weight. If you compare 300/4 then the size / weight is also almost the same (Olympus vs Canon) and if you would like compare it to equivalent lens -> 600/11 Canon is lighter and smaller (with also worse buld and IQ, but still the best equivalent can be found on the market). + FF does provide the option to use faster lenses and wider lenses and T/S lenses and possibility to use crop with hughres bodies which m4/3 does not offer.
I went recently just from Nikon D3400 asp-c to Nikon Z5 full frame. Have to say I am a lot more happier with Z5 thanks to better low light performance and having image stabilization. Also I like to have the wider view of Full Frame on architecture and landscape photography. Photo that I took at 9 pm in dark hand held looks as good as photo taken in daylight with D3400
I use micro four thirds and Sony full frame and most of the time I can't see much difference. Even in low light there's not much. Mainly because of how much I want in focus. Your comment about the lens is probably the most important. I use Olympus 25mm and the Sony 50mm and in many ways the Olympus lens is better and produces nicer images than the Sony (it's also more expensive).
Olympus and Sony ff user here- if I’m taking photos of people in daylight I’m using the Olympus 10 times out of 10. For low light and videos the Sony is far superior tho
@@jumpmansz I bought a bright star, 35 MM f0.95, for my G95, it was 129 dollars at alliexpress on sale for father's day. try it if you are not afraid of manual lenses, to try it quickly leave it on automatic.
I mean isn’t the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 way more expensive than the Sony 50mm f/1.8? The Olympus is a really good lens, very well corrected, fast focusing, and well built. The Sony is honestly poopy. You wouldn’t be saying this if you had one of the good 50s out there.
@@mbvglider exactly. Used the Olympus 25mm was about 1.5 times the cost of the Sony 50mm used. The other difference for my use is I can use the MFT camera at a much wider aperture, a slower shutter speed and over 2 stops lower ISO. Closing the gap between systems. If I was photographing nighttime events like I used to the Sony would be much better than the Olympus.
Very nice and informative comparison! Thanks for taking all the time to produce this. Your results prove that a normal viewing distances, megapixels really don't matter. I'm always amazed when I pull up old images shot on Nikon D1 on a 65" 4k tv. You'd never know they were a mere 2.7mp.
Came here to make sure someone mentioned the lumix 25mm's infamy. Has some issues with sharpness and of course focus shift. Massive reason why I have the Lumix 20mm 1.7 instead. A perfect pancake lens!
I have been shooting at events and ceremonies since fifteen years. I’ve been using fullframe, apsc and now micro4/3 since a couple of years. I have always printed albums (from Saal) and no customer has ever complained about the quality. I don’t look at the photos on the monitor 100% and I don’t worry about the noise. In print it counts for little.
My sweet spot ist APS-c. More reach with telephoto, more dof with macro, lower costs, lower weight and lower size as fullframe. It´s enough for me for milky way shots and anything else. And for portraits I have some 1.4 lenses. For me full frame is no upgrade. I pay for things which I don´t care, and carry things that are bigger and heavier. But that´s my point of view, others can see this totally opposite.
Месяц назад
For me m43 is the limit. After decades of using them all i find 1-inch sensors do just have lower dynamic range and look really gritty, by the time you reach m43 though its gets to “enough” for me. That said i currently only own full frame and apsc.
Excellent rundown across that minefield of parameters having to do with sensor size. After 50 years of doing photography, I settled on Micro 4/3, and I’m really enjoying it.
I bought the APS-C Sony a6700 this spring, mainly because of price, quality and the already vast and ever growing number of high quality lenses. I do street and wildlife photography. For the street the small body with a small high quality lense is just as great as the crop-factor on a not so big tele for wildlife. All I need to keep in mind is favouring aperture over focal-length.
I love small sensor cameras. I love this extra depth of field and use it to my advantage all the time. I am so tired of writer’s writing off micro four thirds as being irrelevant or dead. So I really appreciate this. It’s the small sensor advantage. And just one of the many benefits. Thanks.
It's not dead, but it is a small marked. I love my MFT gear and have expensive lenses, so I want it to do great, but I can understand it's a hard sell to new users when full frame lenses and body's are so small now.
12:17 Because this 25mm was my most used lens for years on my GX85 I'm too familiar with this lol. It's not a very sharp lens, singlehandedly got me to switch to Full Frame thinking the sensor was the issue but clearly there are some sharp AF lenses around.
I've used it and it was fine for video, but there was a noticeable jump in IQ when switching to the PL 25mm f1.4. I'd say it's definitely worth the extra you'd pay (which isn't huge if you buy used).
I didn't even notice it in my personal shots. The Lumix 25mm 1.7 got the shallow depth of field, extra stops of brightness, and 50mm equivalent FOV. My only "complaint" about this lens is the size. It's bigger than the 12-32 pancake kit lens and makes my GX85 kinda front heavy so I ended up not using it as much.
The Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 was supposed to be a cheap nifty fifty so I think it just wasn’t ever meant to be that good. But you have to remember how cheap it was. You could easily get it for $150 new on sale ($149 right now), or like $100 used. Literally every other 25mm lens is much better, but they’re also much more expensive. Olympus 25mm f/1.8 and the PL 25mm f/1.4 were much better but 2-3x as expensive.
@@ej_tech The Olympus 25mm f/1.8 is much smaller, better in quality and if you can find one in black, it'll perfectly match the GX85/95. It cost used as much as a brand new Lumix, though.
In my research of a fast prime for my G9, I have found many others that concluded the 25mm F1.7 is just not sharp. So perhaps it was not the best choice for this comparison, but does demonstrate the importance of good glass.
Can tell a lot of work went into this video. It was a really fun watch. I just finished up a trip to Hong Kong and there were many people carrying compact crop sensor cameras. Mostly Sony and Canon bodies with some Fuji. I think I saw more people carrying film cameras than I saw full frame bodies lol. Crop sensors are still so convenient for travel photography.
Crop Factor^2 * base iso to get equivalent. So for example a full frame with iso 400 will have the same graininess as mft with iso 100 of the same generation. It is pretty when you zoom in even a bit...
It's an error to say "crop sensor" based on the image circle because it's not technically cropping the image circle itself. A 50mm lens made for micro four-thirds (m43) has a much smaller image circle compared to a full-frame (FF) lens. The "crop" refers to the sensor size, which captures part of the projected image, it's not a cropping of the actual image circle which varies based on the lens's optimized design. The crop factor affects more than just the field of view. It also influences the effective f-stop, impacting depth of field and noise performance. A smaller sensor typically has less light-gathering ability, which can lead to more noise at higher ISOs, due to differences in the signal-to-noise ratio. This is why it's important to adjust the aperture in relation to the crop factor when considering the total exposure, image quality, and depth of field.
There is a sweet spot for most types of photography, however you can do them all on most size sensors. APS-C is my sweet spot, for portraiture an F/1.4 lens is shallow enough (at least for pro work where you need both the eye and nose in focus) , faster than that for artistic use, most of the time I stop down to F/2.8 or F/4 for portraiture work whether I'm using Full frame or APSC If i was video first, I'd probably consider the M43 system, smaller sensors, faster readout speeds (if all things are equal), same for wildlife photography
Smaller sensor don't have faster readout speed. The read speed is determined by the number of pixel and the power of the processor, often limited by the way the sonsors's constructor made it
@@9Mtikcus nope... It's the quantity of pixel not the size of them. The readout is the time it gets to read the pixel and to process it. It has nothing to do with the size of the pixel. Low pixel cameras as sony a7s3 has amazing readout (hence why it can record 4k120p) and it's full frame. High pixel camera as sony a74 has much more limited readout (does not record 4k120) and it's full frame too.
@@lucasvivante8988 if all things are equal... That includes pixel size. But also on smaller sensor cameras you can get more advanced sensors at a lower price point $2000 OM1 and $2500 Fuji XH2s for example both of which have much faster readouts compared to similar price full frame options. I'd link you to science that proves MP number is equal the smaller area reads faster. If same technology But I can't be bothered , so I'll politely just say I disagree with you.
While I could endlessly contribute to this discussion, I am very happy with how you presented the most important questions and draw the conclusions. When I learned photography, it was just normal that different systems such as 35mm, medium and large formats had different focal lengths for the same angle of view and also that the use cases where just different. And nobody talked about a “crop factor”. But while in that analog world the film material was the same for all formats and where only differentiated by size, sensors of different sizes usually have different pixel sizes, so that the overall size is only on parameter.
Thanks a lot for this great video. At 12:50, I think that you are giving the best summary: it's about the lens, more than about the sensor. For those who are interested, there is a recipe to produce on a crop sensor images that are identical to full frame images (with native lenses that have the correct image circle for the sensor): on the crop sensor, divide both the focal length and the f-number by the crop factor, use the same shutter speed, and set both cameras to auto ISO (without auto ISO, on the crop sensor, divide the ISO by the square of the crop factor: 2.6 for Canon APS-C, 4 for micro four third). This recipe is useful to compare the lens selection between two camera systems, for a specific genre of photography. For instance, for "budget" wildlife, the lens of choice for full frame would typically be a super-telephoto zoom at 600mm/f-6.3 on the long end - in a price range of $1000-2000. On Micro four third, this would be equivalent to 300mm/f-3.2- and there isn't a great selection there - everything under $2000 is one or two stops slower (doesn't mean it's bad, just that there will be important trade-offs).
Excellent video!!. Mate the camera and marry the lens. Size, and lens quality have found best combination on M/43 sistem. ( for my needs wich are streets photography by now)
been thinking about getting a ff camera for some time and tried to convince myself that it’s definitely a good idea just yesterday lmao such a good timing. ty for making videos
Great video mate! I've been wanting a rundown like this for a while. I think people often put too much weight on the sensor size. Understandably, you'll get better lowlight, better subject separation etc, but I'm not someone who particularly cares about bokehliciousness 24/7
The lumix 25mm 1.7 is quite terrible looking at the available lenses now. I compared the lumix 25 1.7 vs the Sigma 30 1.4 and got the same results from the LUMIX. So glad to see someone understands the positives about crop sensor. Crop sensor all the way 👍
I love the extra depth of smaller sensors, the size of smaller cameras, the extra features they pack in, and basically everything about 1" cameras. The only thing really ever stopping me from just committing is the fear of gain ISO noise, low dynamic range, and digital sharpening over optical IQ. If I found something that hit the sweet spot on those, I'd be a 1" wonder for life
I have the Canon G7X mark iii which has a 1" sensor and a 24-100 full frame equivalent 1.8-2.8 zoom lens. I use it for street and macro photography and shoot in RAW only. Initially I process for noise and optical corrections in DXO photolab and then in LRC . I have never had any issues with dynamic range and noise even upto iso 3200. The sharpness of the G7X is superb. After that I bought the Nikon Z30 which is also a fantastic camera but I still pick up the G7X on my daily walks. My suggestion to you is rent one for a day or two and see if it meets your expectations.
I’ve owned MFT, APS-C and FF Panasonic and Canon cameras. My favorite so far is the LUMIX G9. Best IQ, LUMIX S5. I sometimes use both at the same event or model shoot, and usually I don’t even notice which image came from which camera, especially under 1600 ISO. For me, APS-C is the odd man out, because if you want the pro lenses they’re usually full frame, big and expensive, so you might as well have a FF camera. With MFT, I have IQ that is VERY close to most APS-C cameras, but my lenses are much smaller, lighter and less expensive. Great explanation video, BTW. One quibble is the statement that DOF depends on sensor size, but for the purposes of this video it probably wasn’t worth pointing out the caveats about distance to subject and angle of view, complicating the explanation. 👍👏🙏
You got me. 🤪 I paused when looking at the 4 images and made my guesses. Then you put up the WRONG labels and I'm screaming at my screen saying "no f'n way!!" Then I went back and looked at the lenses you chose and was like, I think he screwed up. Clever, clever Tom 🤣
I mostly shoot Micro 4/3 and new lenses are reasonable price. On the used Market Canon EF (Full Frame) and EF-M (APS-C) can be really cheap. You can use EF lens on APS-C. If you’re on a tight budget go with an older Canon APS-C. Really any Camera from the last 10-15 years will take great pictures. Especially if you’re shooting in normal lighting condition.
Holy smokes, a video that actually explains ACCURATELY aperture is lens tied not sensor tied, and the crop factor accurately and even the pixel diode size has impact on noise not the sensor size? Amazing!! Good work, absolutely breath of fresh air compared to decades of misinformation spread on the internet that somehow F4 becomes F8 in terms of light gathering on smaller sensor and somehow sensor size is culprit for noise rather than pixel diode size. And for those who are actually suspicious of the claim that pixel diode is the culprit for noise, well you can just look at video cameras today that uses a super 16 sensor which is closest to APS-C have something like 4 to 8mp on them yet perform in terms of low light similar to a 24 megapixel full frame sensor, why is that? Well the pixel diode size is almost similar, likewise a 60mp full frame sensor starts creeping closer to noise performance of a 20 megapixel APS-C camera so there is that, all perfect real world examples people can explore rather than getting into the science of it which debunked this myth that sensor size matters like 20 years ago, it was a big thing in the astrophotography community when finally a NASA scientist jumped in and debunked the entire debacle with actual SCIENCE BABY!
Just moved back to 4/3 for most all of my shooting (need to learn your settings for low light, not that bad on 4/3 up to 6400) I do still have a Fuji and Pentax K-1 !! BUT features on the G9 with good glass makes for a great shooting experience. I do sell prints and have no issue with 4/3 !!
I have an A6400 and an A7rii and A7 iv. Don't know what these people are talking about but the A6400 horrible in lowlight. Even at daytime the images quality is just ok. My nikon D7200 from back in the day had better lowlight capabilities than the A6400
ISO also scales just like crop factor, you need to compare equivalents. To get the same light sensitivity it's 640 on full frame, is 280 on APS-C is 160 on MFT. 12,800 on full frame is 5,700 on APS-C is 3,200 on MFT - the formula is Multiply ISO by crop factor squared. Same goes for lens matching, etc. So actually if you get a 16mm f/1.4 lens on APS-C with ISO300 , you will get very similar results (similar noise too) as 24mm f/2.0 ISO640 on full frame. The advantage of full frame comes when you have those amazing f/1.4 primes, there are no f/0.7 primes for MFT to match it. This is why often professionals buy the lens before the camera :)
This is something a lot of enthusiasts/hobbyists that use smaller sensor cameras don't understand. The reason why the overwhelming majority of pros shoot on full frame is because of the noise performance and lenses available. You can't get an f/1.4 zoom lens for MFT to match the fairly common f/2.8 zooms on full frame. Even f/4 zooms on FF outclass nearly everything on MFT, other than the two Panasonic f/1.7 zooms that have short ranges.
@@richardfink7666 Nor is there such an equivalent for MFT cameras. If you think otherwise you are misinformed and have fallen for the main dishonest marketing point of MFT.
@@TechnoBabble As far as I`m concerned the angle of view of a 300-1200mm/6.3 for ff....there`s no such thing! Btw. You can quickly adapt any lens to mft camera. With a speedboster you can do it from aperture 4 to aperture 2.8 with the same angle of view!
@@richardfink7666 Like I said, if you think there is an equivalent to a full frame 300-1200mm f/6.3 on MFT you are extremely misinformed and have fallen for the dishonest MFT marketing, mainly done by Olympus. You don't get to magically cheat physics by using a smaller sensor.
Great video, probably the best I've seen on this topic, but isn't the last sentence somewhat contradictory? After defining personal needs (and budget) I'd say sensor size is the very first decision any beginner photographer has to make.
Not exactly, it is a combination of sensor size, camera price, lens availability and lens prices. I have just recently evaluated all these to choose between Zf vs S9 + Sigma compact primes vs X-T50 + f1.4 Fuji lenses. Eventually, my pick was S9 with the Sigma primes, but the Fuji was a very strong competitor, it took me a week with multiple hands-on sessions in the store to be able to decide.
Nice video and super interesting results with the 25mm lens. Never owned the Lumix 25mm, but I do have the Leica 25mm f.1.4, which I've never been disappointed by picture quality wise and it stays on my GX80 a lot. The only drawback is the outrageously shaped and sized lens hood which doubles the size of the lens (though it does have a certain vibe to it).
This was a very instructive video, specially the printing part. And I would love to learn more about it. My main question is how do you print a bigger image than it's supposed to be using the 300 dpi rule ? For example, a 6000x4000 P sensor (24MP) should only produce a 20x13.3" (~51x34cm)print. What is your method to producing bigger images? reduced dpi, digital enlarging, just click print and let it be free?
Also, there is just one correction I would made on what you said. The depth of field is related to focal length (higher FL -> less DF), aperture (higher -> less DF), focus point (closer -> less DF). What bigger sensor does is allowing to focus closer with a longer lens.
I have two things as an amateur. The lenses are way more important than the sensor sizes. And for the printed photos, I think the crispier or not doesn't matter, as long as the size of the printing is good. Because people will have to take a certain distance to enjoy the photos. But overall, thanks for the math😁 and for all the information you put effort to present in your video.
Whenever I get GAS, I just add a lens to my m43 collection. So far the system hasn’t failed me, and allows me to capture moments I wouldn’t normally be able to (50fps full resolution raw with pre-capture, live GND, live ND, live composite etc).
If you do video work with fast pans or action, full-frame sensors generally have lower reading of the sensor and result in way more rolling shutter than APS-C or M4/3 sensors.
No, it's about the lens and sensor combination. FF rules based on the many FF lens options (specifically faster options). RX10 IV is 600mm f/11 FF equivalence, this shows how smaller sensors put higher demand on very fast lenses to compensate. What lens on any smaller sensor can match a f/1.2 lens on FF? The answer is nothing, including the medium format. This is what matters, not the sensor size, but the lens options combined with the sensor size. Also, the noise is based on signal-to-noise ratio, not the size of the pixels. The overall amount of light per exposure unit is larger on larger sensors, hence why f-stop is part of the crop factor.
Micro four thirds all the way! Smaller, cheaper and 90% of what you get from full frame. The main sacrifice is the reduced bokeh, if that's something you care about for your use case. For me, I get plenty of soft backgrounds with the PanaLeica lenses for way less money than equivalent full-frame lenses. My GH5ii is a beast and makes an amazing travel/vlogging camera in combination with a DJI Mic 2. Of course, I'm jealous of the GH7's better autofocus, but I can't afford that thing yet :)
The main sacrifice is ~4x the noise at any given ISO. If you're in bright light or controlled situations, smaller sensors can be just fine. But when I'm in an unpredictable or dark lighting situation a FF camera is going to give me objectively better results, since I can't get a 12-35mm f/1.4 or 25mm f/0.7 on MFT.
@@TechnoBabble Oh that's true of course. I'm used to even smaller sensors from phones and action cameras, though, so MFT's noise is not even a consideration for me haha
Larger sensors with the same size pixels will still produce less overall noise across the image at a given ISO setting. By your logic the A7R V and a6700 should produce identical levels of noise, but if you compare them that's clearly not the case. The A7R V is about a stop ahead in noise performance at each ISO, as would make sense given it's sensor having about 2.25x the area of the a6700's sensor. Smaller pixels individually do have a lower signal to noise ratio, but since a larger sensor would have more of said pixels the total SNR of the final image will still be better than a smaller sensor with the same sized pixels. When comparing sensor's of similar technology levels, the only thing that effects noise is the total amount of light hitting the sensor.
This is one of the most comprehensive and complete analysis of sensor sizes I've seen. Kudos to you, Mr. Carlton. This must've taken a lot of time and energy to make this happen. P.S. I'm happy to see that my lovely 20mm Lumix was a sharp lens and could compete quite favorably to the larger sensors!
I’m glad you included the Nikon J5 because I have that camera and I can’t believe how sharp that little 18.5 mm lens is and how big you can blow it up on the back screen and still see really good detail. What a great comparison, especially for all those Pixel peepers out there that figure that their 45 megapixel cameras just so much better than anything else. Basically that 20 megapixel sensor is like taking a 45 or 50 megapixel camera sensor and cropping it down to 1 inch and that would be the size of your pixels. And I can’t believe you printed all these because that’s where you really see a difference if any. And prints are to be viewed from a normal distance. I had this experience years ago where I saw a 2‘ x 3‘ picture taken by a Nikon D 70 which is a six megapixel sensor. I was really impressed. Thanks for sharing. Regards, Gerry.
Wow. So many great points several of which have been confirmed by other pros. Convinced me to stick with APS-C for my type of photography. Sports and travel. Thanks
As someone who learned photography on a Fujifilm Bridge Camera and later on a Canon EOS 1000D. the took a long hiatus until I fell in love with film photography around 2019, just to switch back to digital, due to health reasons (don't become chronically ill, children, it really isn't fun lol) I do feel that my current M43 sensor is still outperforming most common film stocks in terms of resolution and detail, is on par in terms of dynamic range and has less noise at similar ISO values. So in a sense crop sensor digital is what 35mm was for film, the format that gives good enough image quality, a good price to performance value and a portable overall system. Full frame digital fits more in line with medium format film, giving you even better quality, but at a size and price penalty for the whole system. Also, get the best glass you can and then the best body for that glass you can still afford afterwards! Glass is so damn important! Which was why I went for an Olympus E-M1 II in the end, the 45mm 1.8 is really nice, the 12.40mm 2.8 absolutely amazing!
Fotografavo i matrimoni con la pellicola 35mm per avere un sistema leggero, veloce e con maggiore possibilità di scatti, rispetto alla pellicola medio formato. Nel 2004 sono passati al digitale, preferendo il formato 4/3: la reflex Olympus E-1 mi regalava risultati migliori con la possiblità di salire anche ad 800 iso senza tanti problemi ed era piacevole poter usare diaframmi più aperti pur avendo la medesima profondità di campo con la pellicola 35mm, oggi full-frame. Questo significa che potevo scattare spesso ad f:2,8 o poco più, invece di f:5,6. Nei fatti, gli 800 iso digitali erano equivalenti alla pellicola da 3.200 iso, operativamente. 🤔 Nel reportage occorre anche descrivere l'ambiente: nessuna coppia di sposi sceglie una grande stampa dove lei è nitida e lo sposo, solo perché leggermente spostato dal piano di messa a fuoco, è sfuocato. Poi amavo stampare nel formato 30x40cm invece del 30x45 come ero costretto con la pellicola 35mm. Per questo, mai ho sentito l'esisgenza di investire nei formati maggiori: il 4/3 e quindi il micro 4/3, sono l'ideale per le mie reali esigenze.
For me, I have standardized on APS-C as the camera of choice when I need maximum quality. I also used the Sony 1" sensor when the circumstances dictate and portability is a must. I have recently discovered the Olympus TG-7 with it's 1 2/3" sensor. The TG-7 can do about 90% what my bigger and heavier APS-C cameras can do, but I can put the entire set up in my pockets(admittedly, fairly large pockets). And the TG-7 can do macro with a few light-weight plastic attachments.
I switched from full frame to APSC (fujifilm) and I don’t regret it , sensor technology is developing very fast . Less gear weight is very much needed as I was suffering from neck/back pain.
I shoot so many different cameras I've given up caring about FF vs M43 etc. For example I just bought a Sigma DP1....what a fascinating camera that is.
It's worth noting that where you do get a consistent saving in size and weight with a smaller format is the lenses. I use both Panasonic Micro 4/3 and Fuji APS-C, and I have a set of primes at 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and 90mm FF equivalents for both. The Micro 4/3 lens set is significantly smaller and lighter than the Fuji set, even though my Panasonic GX8 and Fuji X-Pro 2 bodies are pretty much the same size.
Are they truly equivalent though, or do the lenses for APS-C have larger entrance pupils? For example, the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 and the Fuji 35mm f/2 are equivalent lenses in terms of their field of view and entrance pupil size (DoF and light gathering) and they're nearly identical in size and weight.
Ideally, a photographer develops a personal style and works with a camera format that compliments it. But a photographer who uses several camera types will often find that his very perception changes when he is carrying a small camera instead of a large one, and vise versa. Knowing the characteristics of each camera type can help us appreciate its advantages, while coping successfully with its drawbacks. I urge, again, avoiding a common illusion that creative work depends on equipment alone, it is easy to confuse the hope for accomplishment with the desire to possess superior instruments. It is nonetheless true that quality is an important criterion in evaluating camera equipment, as a re durability and function. Inferior equipment will prove to be a false economy in the long run. As his work evolves, the photographer should plan to alter and refine his equipment to meet changing requirements. Ideally, the photographer will choose basic equipment of adequate quality, with nothing that is inessential. It is certainly preferable to work from simple equipment up, as needs dictate, than to overbuy equipment at first. Starting with basic equipment allows the photographer to develop a full understanding of the capabilities of each unit before advancing to other instruments. Too many people merely do what they are told to do. The greatest satisfaction derives from the realization of your individual potential, perceiving something in your own way and expressing it through adequate understanding of your tools. Take advantage of everything, be dominated by nothing except your own convictions. Do not lose sight of the essential importance of craft, every worthwhile human endeavor depends on the highest level of concentration and mastery of basic tools. The next time you pickup a camera, think of it not as an inflexible and automatic robot, but as a flexible instrument which you must understand to properly use. An electronic and optical miracle creates nothing on its own! Whatever beauty and excitement it can represent exists in your mid and spirit to begin with. Ansel Adams THE CAMERA 1980
Definitely agree. I bought a sigma art 35mm f1.4, and I found that I could care less about it and the 40mm f2.8 is plenty good enough, and much lighter. Even in lower light I prefer the minimum DOF.
I’ve used pretty much everything and guess what I use the most nowadays? A LUMIX GX85. My leica’s, etc all just sit in their bags. I was ignorant and brushed off the m43 system for a long time. I figured it’ll just look like some photos from a 2004 Nokia phone. One day I saw a sale for the gx85 taking place for the body and two lenses, I figured worst to worst I can return it back. I was blown away when I received and started using it. The size, the lenses are affordable (especially in comparison to the red dot stuff!), and it is FUN. The L monochrome BW profile with the 20mm 1.7? The heavens open up and the angels begin to sing. I know Leica and Panasonic have their alliance and there’s no doubts in my mind that Leica helped develop thay BW profile for Panasonic. It literally looks like any BW picture I’ve ever gotten out of a Leica. Is the lumix gx85 the end all, be all? Of course not. As photographers, we are all on the quest to find the ultimate one camera body. And so far, it doesn’t exist. This lumix sure has become a close choice though! Especially in 2024 with all the cameras and lenses giving a fake, oversharpened look to the pictures, the older sensor from the LUMIX js a real breathe of fresh air with its natural, filmic look to the pics.
Macro photography is also and area where crop sensors have a physical advantage (higher magnification ratio, more depth of field) over larger sensors. OM system has capitalised on this with their recently released 90mm f3.5 Pro macro lens.
Excellent and informative video. The print comparisons really are the final test showing that any of the sensors can produce great quality images. But ultimately the key to a great photo is the subject matter not sensor size 😊
Panasonic Dynamic Range boost seems significant enough to bridge the gap between FF and MFT in terms of noise, not enough to have the same quality, but close enough to trail behind FF. I hope more smaller sensor cameras took dual gain readout approach to increase their image quality.
As much as I enjoyed this video, I have to say, please try and allow the natural pauses in the video, because it will enable us to absorb the information more easily, those natural "breathing" pauses are crucial for human brains to process the information, otherwise, we will get bored and automatically switch off, this is a small piece of advice, you are still free to do what you want, I know, the argument is to shorten the video, but it's counterproductive, I hope you don't take it as a criticism but just as constructive criticism. The video was great.
Nice vid, I had 2 systems running side by side Sony A73 and Oly om10ii. One day I was in Lightroom cataloguing all my pics and noticed out of all the pics I rated most of them were with Olympus. I decided to invest in just m43 as a result. The bonus is no stupid heavy lenses I have to cart around which in my opinion can sometimes look a bit like… “look how big mine is compared to yours” syndrome 🙄
For some genre of photography, fullframe is definitely better. I mostly shoot landscape astrophotography. Started with Fuji X-T1 and upgraded to Ha moded Sony A7IV. Couldn't be happier.
I just noticed, this video is 34" wide and I have a 34" monitor, really nice! I would suggest to be a little bit further away from the camera because the head looks way too big, so you need to zoom out.
Right. Full-frame cameras are unbeatable when it comes to shallow depth of field, an extensive selection of very cheap manual prime lenses (which, while usable on other sensor sizes, effectively crop into telephotos there), and superior low-light performance. It's not just about price or compactness because many APS-C and Micro Four Thirds options are actually more expensive and bulkier. (Still, a pre-owned APS-C with low shutter count is the best bang for the buck among all sensor sizes in 2024). Also, you can scale down the sensor size, but you can't scale down the light waves, which is why the practical aperture is limited on both sides for smaller sensors (although ND filters and electronic shutters help mitigate this). Anyway, taking print size and viewing distance into consideration is an excellent point. It's a much more sensible way to evaluate the quality of your images than pixel-peeping. Even some slightly noisy or slightly out-of-focus smartphone pictures can still look perfectly detailed when printed at 10x15 cm or shared in a social media post.
I've been using Canon 5D for the past 16 years almost exclusively and let me tell you - the best camera is the one you have with you. I missed a lot of opportunities because I didn't feel like lugging the heavy lens and DSLR around. Which is why I am here. My love for full frame is all but gone by now, and I am looking to buy a small m4/3 camera with equally small 2 primes and a zoom lens. Maybe I won't like it, maybe the DOF will not be something to my liking... But it just makes me sad, that I don't take as many photos as before just because sometimes it's too much of a hassle with a FF camera.
Don't know if it's been mentioned already because there are so many comments but the Panasonic 25mm/f1.7 suffers from significant focus shift (CameraHoarders documented it well in a vid) if your comparison photo was shot stopped down. It's worst between f2.8 and 5.6, I think. Your GX camera should have a setting called "constant preview". With it on the camera will focus with the lens stopped down and you should get a big improvement. Mine was incredibly sharp once I changed the setting.
I have both a sony a7iv and a fuji xt5 and the xt5 performance is nowhere near my sony a7iv. Xt5 is just great because it’s smaller, lightweight, has amazing colors and film simulations, thats it.
@@jolima if we’re talking lowlight then yeah the sensor size is a factor, a full frame is just slightly better at it. I can take the same image on both cameras with the same fov, the same settings and i assure u the image from the full frame is cleaner. My 23 and 35 f2 lenses for my xt5 also hunts sometimes and wouldn’t want to focus on the intended subject and that’s something that I didn’t experience with my 35gm/50gm lens for my sony
@@houghwhite411 Sony known for cutting edge AF? - I don't think so, but I could be wrong. Maybe in their high-end cameras. I got an A6700 and I know that's towards the mid/low end - not really happy with it's AF - Going back to Canon on my next upgrade.
Agree 100%. I have all of the above sensor sizes and unless I'm looking for a particular benefit (like shallow depth of field) they all work fine, even for professional work. Most of my images wind up on corporate web pages, so MP count and the like like makes little difference. However, I use older FFs (Canon 5D IV and III) for some work, but that is based on the lenses I have, and some of the features built into the camera. The camera that I find that I use over and over for personal work is a Canon M6 Mark II. It is small and produces great images. Honestly, all cameras produced in the last 10 years (and beyond) can be adapted to just about any job. That includes my trusty Nikon D3S which has a mighty 12 MP. I love that camera, but it is a bit too chunky for most of the work that I now do.
I had the Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 lens, and the two copies I owned were perfect when purchased. However, at some point, both lenses deteriorated and became very soft with strange out-of-focus rendering. It was almost as if an adhesive came loose on one of the elements, causing it to shift. I was really upset because the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 didn't have the same rendering quality as the Panasonic when it was new. At the time, my cameras were the Panasonic G7 and G9.
The heck? No pentax Q camera. The theory I just made up about Tom hating Pentax is realish. (This comment is complete malarkey and doesn’t reflect the views of Mr Calton. Any pentaxians lingering in the comments waiting to be angered or offended should direct their anger elsewhere.)
I do street photography. Size and weight is very important to me. I mostly use M43 or APSC sensors. I don’t have a need for a full frame sensor. I maybe a sensor snob. I don’t use the camera in my phone. I don’t want to use a sensor smaller than a 1” sensor. At some point you might want to decide what is the minimum size sensor you want to work with. That being said the major consideration is the quality of the lens you use. Money spent on glass is a better investment than money spent on a body(sensor). Mask On Nurse Marty (Ret)
@@miklosnemeth8566 "If you spend the money on excellent expensive lenses with the wrong mount, you will end up in a severe financial loss." But buying the wrong lens mount doesn't change the fact how much good glass impacts ones images. You don't buy lenses as an investment - you buy a lens to create great shots. That's what he's talking about. If you don't have good glass - It doesn't matter what body you choose, without good glass it's just dead weight - relatively speaking.
The thing is that lenses are MUCH MORE important then sensor size. Well, to a certain limit... I left FF system for MFT this year. On FF system I used mid-range lenses, that have their pros and cons, you know, like 24-105/4, 85/1.8, 16-35/4 e.t.c. I sold all of them and bought MFT Pro grade lenses instead. And my MFT system (not camera, but system!) performs better then my FF system before it (I had them both and was able to make comparison photos). In addition MFT zooms are MUCH better then FF zooms (I use zooms mainly) and, in the same time, they are smaller. Now I have 4 fantastic lenses ranging from 16mm (FF EQ) to 600mm with min aperture of 5.6 and all that can be placed inside my Vanguard Veo 41 backpack all together with a camera and a flash.
The Bokeh is not related to the sensor size but to the focal length, this is a lens thing. 50mm gives the same bokeh on full frame then on m43, the FOV will be different. 2nd thing: the noise is not megapixels, but just sensor size, just more square cm...
As far as Bokeh is concerned you are making no real-lie sense at all. It is the sensor size that determines which focal length lens you need to take any given photo in any given situation. The fact the same focal length lens on any sensor size will give the same Bokeh is utterly irrelevant. You are not going to be using the same focal length lenses - because the sensor size dictates otherwise.
Something doesn't add up in the J5 vs A7III DOF comparison. Between F4 and F11 there are 3 stops of light, which means an equivalent ISO at F11 should be around 1250. Of course there are differences in lens transmission and even calibration of the ISO values between cameras (Nikon's ISO100 for instance is often something like 160) but I don't see how that accounts for 2 full stops to get ISO5000. Also, since we're at it - this is also a highly neglected area of equivalence - noise performance. This should be accounted for because FF cameras can several stops above smaller sensor cameras and still produce clean signal with good detail, so it's not just a matter of losing light with the smaller aperture if you can get by with higher ISO. Depending on the exact camera model you may lose no quality by just stopping down to get the same DOF with increased ISO.
I noticed a huge difference in dynamic range going to a 1 inch sensor from a 1/2.3 inch sensor. Is this lens or sensor though? Didn't notice any similar change going from 1 inch to APSC. Or dropping back to micro 4/3.
