I don't shoot M43 anymore, I went back to Fuji as I just enjoyed that system a little more. But, I would never rule out returning to M43 or adding it to my kit - it's a fantastic system, plenty of options across the board for beginners to pro, for photography only or for the video heads. The differences between M43 and APSC are really slight, yes APSC is better at higher ISO, and FF will be better again, but other than that you can produce great imagery with all formats if you know what you're doing. It pisses me off too, the FF only brigade in particular, sneering at smaller formats. You can almost always tell when the person slating the gear has never actually used it - they barely use their expensive FF gear as they spend most of their time on here or across forums talking absoloute nonsense. The same guys probably fill the gaps in their day smack talking on Ps4 vs Xbox one or PC vs console comments sections ....
My worst temptation, as a Gear Head Wannabe on a budget, is all the latest and greatest gear that is available. What brings me back to reality is looking at the quality of the images I’m getting with my m43 gear. That is so good it means my wife doesn’t even have a chance to tell me I don’t need new gear. There will have to be some real advances or changes in digital photography before anything much changes in my camera bag, gear-wise.
I am not doing video at all only stills at m43 but finding your videos and this particular one are extremely useful and helpful. No fuss , no arrogance just calm explanations and good illustrations. Love it! Thanks a lot!
I have been using 6400 for birding in low light on my E-M1.2 and the colour and sharpness from the raw files is totally useable. Good exposure is the key whatever ISO you use.
I use the Panasonic G9 for videos and I find the camera very capable of achieving almost everything you want from a camera, The Internal 4k 10 bit is game changing and most clients don't even know the difference between Sony and Panasonic if you color graded it right ! The truth is as long as you know how to adjust your settings and focus on the creativity of a project and editing those are the things are what make or breaks a video ! Enjoy the content man keep it up !
"You will get more noise on the smaller sensor because it cant get as much light". This is actually a lie. The amount of light is NOT defined by the sensor at all, but by F number of the lens. M43 lenses have this value calculated specifically for surface of the M43 sensor. Check out HOW is Fnumber calculated. If you would use such lens on FF sensor you would see the difference in surface to which is image displayed. You would see it as a small round image in the center, or as a significant vignetting. Therefore If you have F2,8 on FF and F2,8 you will get EXACTLY SAME LIGHT intensity. What matters is how much % of a single pixel on the sensor is actually photosensitive. From this (and some other parameters) derives signal to noise ratio (SNR). Current 20Mpix sensors in M43 are in most cases equal to FF or APS-C sensors. And basically thats why you method works. If you overexpose the image for lets say 1 stop, and you use higher ISO for it, it does not matter because the signal the sensor read was stronger than the noise.
I don't understand why are people so afraid of noise either. Film cameras had way more grain and noise and it actually had character. Embrace your system. It's a unique signature.
Connor, I love your content and I’ve liked many of your videos. You’re on point but being reductionist about m43 (or any camera/sensor) ISO issues. I’ve shot many events, lots of paid work with my trusty EM1ii, which is my favourite all time camera.. I however would RARELY shoot above ISO 1600 for stills and 3200 for video. Colour noise and image degradation is significant above 1600.
You are a fantastic teacher! I always learn when I listen to you and your passion is genuine. I really appreciate that. I really Expect your channel to grow... Get ready... Blessings!
I subscribed to your channel because you've helped me to understand my G9 better.. but for the kinds of video I shoot I'll need a good b cam and I always shoot with natural light. I've been thinking of getting a7iii and who better than you to ask who owns both to know will it be a good secondary camera that fills up the gap?
Was it NTSC you were thinking of? ^_^ As for ISO, I don't shoot video, but I'm not afraid of 3200 or even 6400 with stills on my G85. Okay, sure, there's some noise, and it isn't as perfectly clean, but meh. I'll take having a chance for the photo over getting nothing. ISO will probably be my only way of increasing gain for the first while once I get my telescope and mount, because of just how garbled long exposures get in short order with the G85.
You seem to have contradicted yourself in the first 40 seconds. Bigger sensors will always have significantly better noise/low light/high ISO/dynamic range performance than smaller sensors (assuming same generation technology), whether the performance of M43 is acceptable is a personal choice. I used and was perfectly happy with M43 for a few years, but changed to Sony FF when I was shown the indisputable difference. I also now use Fuji APS-C and that is also significantly better than M43, in fact closer to FF than to M43 in performance.
I have a question so you know how they say with a lower sensor you get more noise how come that’s not the case with iPhones and those sensors are small
True, but almost all phones these days (Iphone, S20, etc.) use a ton of algorythms, machine learning, and other software, to simulate and cover up the obvious sensor shortcomings. Nevertheless, phone cameras really are impressive nowadays, when I remember my phones just 5 years ago in comparison
I wonder what those full frame sensors worshippers think about the image quality of smartphones cameras. Those have tiny sensors but get pretty good results in 80% of cases.
What is the bottom line of this video? ISO on m43 is very good, just always use a good light and a fast lens?????... Kinda weird piece of advice. Dont get me wrong, I am a happy G9 user... I think this video is really educative, but the tiltle is almost a clickbait ;)
Not sure I'm a big fan of your color results... doesn't look natural to me, like, at all. Too orange/yellowey. Like to me eye around 3:50 is probably somewhere around natural/reallife representation, probably. Unless you have some weird skin complex and different blood pumping through your veins... it just looks way off once you're done with it.
Hey shiz, I get you! 7.43 is with the Leeming LUT applied with nothing else and that's the state for accurate colour. The grade on top is just to boost the saturation for the sake of creating a "look" afterward. It's definitely vibrant, not for everyone. What are you viewing it on. My monitors are 10bit panels and it looks grand. When I view it on my phone it's not so nice.
@@CreativeConnor My ASUS ZenBook Flip. Color calibrated with Datacolor Spyder 5 Pro. Looks about the same on my Huawei P30 Pro, maybe a little less so? Still somewhere in-between president Trump and an Oompa Loompa though? To me atleast. Just my humble opinion of course. :P Larry Jordan back in the day did a great presentation on color correction. Based greatly on the learnings of Alexis Van Hurkman. So, I prefer to work through the vectorscope and waveforms, rather than leaving it up to the camera and LUTs. Unless you can make a LUT for a particular setup that never changes (studio, same lighting/subject everytime).
Similar experience here. On plain G9 footage I see both pink/salmon and yellow/jaundice hue in the face. The location sometimes seems to vary as you turn your face, as if the hue depends on brightness. I see it on quite a lot of GH5 footage. I have noticed on other camera's aswell that a camera can sometimes see subtle variations in contrast and hue that I can't see with my bare eyes. As if contrast between both brightness and colors is exaggerated. With the leeming lut it appears to balance out quite nicely but once you enhance brightness or contrast and saturation, there it is again. But that wasn't the point of your video I believe. I would argue, proper exposure doesn't necessarily imply your grey card should be at 50 IRE. When it is dark, i.e. when you are shooting a low key scene, the footage is allowed to look dark. Sometimes bumping up iso, to lower it again in post can mask some compression artifacts, but that also depends on your camera codec and other details of your gear and workflow. I find it hard to give general guidelines here. Best is to experiment with the gear you have and the workflow you use to see what works best.
