Small Sensors Suck... Right? (Full Frame vs APS-C vs M43 vs 1in)
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 07. 2024
- Small sensors suck and full frame is king, right? Well, no, not really. I mean, sure, they have their pros and cons, but so do all sensor sizes! In this video, I'll be covering some of the practical implications of using big and small sensors and how they affect your photography!
🔴 Thank you to Saal Digital for sponsoring this video! 🔴
💸Get 50% OFF all Saal Digital products using the links below! (Offer valid until September 20th 2024)
🇺🇸 US: www.saal-digital.com/lp/tomca...
🇬🇧 UK: www.saal-digital.co.uk/lp/tom...
🇪🇺 EU: www.saal-digital.eu/lp/tomcal...
🖼️Get my Lightroom Preset Pack 🖼️
🌐 www.tomcalton.com
📸 Used Cameras & Lenses 📸
🇺🇸 prf.hn/l/lGWAl3Q
🇬🇧 prf.hn/l/Xv5BwnV
🇪🇺 prf.hn/l/Xv5BwnV
--------------------------------------
💀 VIEW MY MERCH LINE 💀
www.deadnegative.com
🤘 FOLLOW ME 🤘
www.tiktok.com/@tomcalton
tom.calton
tom.calton
www.tomcalton.com
--------------------------------------
⏳ TIME STAMPS ⏳
Intro - @0:00
The Cameras - @1:00
The Lenses - @1:40
Crop Factor - @1:53
Pros & Cons of Crop Factors - @4:48
Depth-Of-Field x Crop Factor - @6:34
Size & Weight - @8:18
Price - @9:05
Aspect Ratio - @9:28
Digital Noise - @10:16
Image Quality - @11:30
Print Quality - @13:00
--------------------------------------
💰My CZcams Studio Equipment 💰
📷 Sony ZV-E1
🇺🇸 amzn.to/49wDh6r
🇬🇧 amzn.to/4bWOmz0
📷 Sigma 24mm f/2 DG DN
🇺🇸 amzn.to/48KBedO
🇬🇧 TBC
📷Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8
🇺🇸 amzn.to/3IlCmd6
🇬🇧 amzn.to/3IkEL7C
📷 Insta360 X3
🇺🇸 amzn.to/3wDK5AB
🇬🇧 amzn.to/48F98QO
🎙️Movo VXR10
🇺🇸 amzn.to/3T0VCkR
🇬🇧 amzn.to/49VKgoW
💡Sirui Dragon Series RGB Lights
🌐shrsl.com/415k2
💲 Affiliate Links: The links above are affiliate links, which means that any purchases made using them may give me a small commission. This comes at no additional cost to yourself but does go a long way to help support the channel, so thank you in advance for using them.
--------------------------------------
⚠ PLEASE NOTE ⚠
All of the opinions expressed in this video are my own based on my personal experience whilst using the equipment/software featured. Whilst some videos may include paid sponsorship, I never allow manufactuers to dictate what I can or can't say about their product(s). Their money helps to cover the cost of video production, it does NOT buy my opinion.
My videos are designed to be both informative and entertaining and are made to the best of my abilities. I am only human so I do occationally make mistakes, and whilst corrections are always welcomed in the comments, please be polite and courteous and refrain from being a total cockwomble. 👍 - Jak na to + styl
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.
Anyone who sees a fantastic nighttime available-light frozen-motion sports picture would never assume it was taken with a 1/2.33" sensor camera.
💀💀💀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
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.
And the toughest weather sealing in the camera industry!
@@markhoffman9655 I prefer Pentaxs weather sealing. Not because I've tried Olympus but because I've dropped my Pentax in wet sloppy mud before lol
I did the same with Nikon…had a crop, then went to full-frame, and now back to crop but with a Fuji.
I'm finding myself in the same journey! Not ready to completely ditch my FF yet, however the m43 collection has outgrown the FF stuff already 😅
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.
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).
@@matthieuzglurg6015 I was hoping somebody commented about this. Great information!
Exactly. So few people understand this.
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.
@@viktorpaulsen627 That only interest full frame users, all others don´t care. They take pictures.
@@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?
@@Mikri90 Micro four thirds cameras use the same sized sensors as four thirds.
@@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.
Some of the MFT lenses weigh as much as full frame... So it's less of factor sometimes.
@@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 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.
@@mrdubert9782 I also done the same. I use a7ii and a6500 but when shooting sport, I use a6500 because it can reach further.
GX8 was a dream camera for those who loved tilt up EVF. I've just purchased the S9, and the only thing I am missing is the tiltup EVF from GX8.
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?
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.
@@jumpmansz I do the same. For my circumstance they are close but the Sony wins. I think it's the lens that lets the Sony down.
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.
The 25mm 1.7 lumix lens is famous for focus shifting. Try the Leica 25mm 1.4 (I or II version) if you can. It's very sharp, and focuses better.
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!
Yep.. had a GX9, loved it... Had 2 x 25mm lenses.. BOTH were returned, so lacking in sharpness..🤷♂️
@@bailingo The Lumix 25mm f1.7 is actually a sharp lens . There is a way to overcome the focus shift issue.
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).
What model and manufacturer micro 4/3 cameras do you shoot with?
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
Its not about the size, its abou how you use it. 😅
this is totally true 🤫😇
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.
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.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed the view and thanks for the comment 😁
I use an Em1 M3, XE 4, A7 iv and Leica Q3....all have their pros and cons, i print up to 60 cms and no issue at all, specially if you use pure raw 4
The medium format folks are going to feel unloved. 😂
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 :)
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.
One of the best videos I ever seen on the photography community. Thank you
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
I use full frame for low light concert stuff but thats just so when i crop in its not too noisy.
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.
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 🤣
Full frame in digital is the the equivalent to 35mm film or as it was known as micro or mini format, 35mm was never known as full frame it was and still is a marketing ploy by the camera manufacturer
Right! Back in the film days, 35mm was "small format" and was mainly for photographers who traveled a lot, who needed the portability, as well as for sports and wildlife-exactly the kind of jobs that Micro Four Thirds cameras excel at today.
Most movies are shot on 35mm 🤔
Thanks for an excellent, informative video. I learned a lot. Answered many questions I’ve had.
I shoot full frame, and I’ve considered going to APSC and this is going to help finalize that decision.
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 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 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.
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.
This is so 2012 photoGraphic CZcams. Brings back memories. Thanks for the time machine subject.
And yet people still debate FF is the best APSC & MFT are for kids.
@@rsat9526 i guess maintaining insatisfaction and upgrading from your current camera to a new whatever one is still a thing 🤷♂️
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.
That was an excellent video presentation. Thank you so very much.😊
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.
High end APSC cameras from Fuji are not cheaper than FF cameras. The X-T50 wasn't significantly less expensive than S9. And the brilliant Sigma compact F2 primes with excellent AF were consistently more uniform and better performing than the corresponding F1.4 Fuji lenses.
I think theres a trend of useful videos in the last couple week! Excellent.
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.
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.
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.
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 !!
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).
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.
Great point, thanks for sharing 👌🏻
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.
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 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.
This is a great video and resource. Good work and thanks for putting this together
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
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
@@lucasvivante8988 hence all things being equal. If same sensor technology and processing power, it takes less time to read a smaller sensor
@@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.
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)
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 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.
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
Excellent comparison. I have all but full frame. Color science difference is apparent but all have fabulous resolution. (OM-5, K-70, D60, J4).
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).
If You are using camera for documentation - small sensor and hence deeper depth of field may be more useful than cameras with large sensors.
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
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.
Yeah no you nailed it, this is the video i been searching for
Thanks! Really glad you found it useful 😄
The biggest thing with smaller sensors and crop factor isn't getting the glass for equivalent field of view. It's the lack of comparable f stop. Comparable wide lenses to a 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 on FF just aren't available.
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 😊
About that depth of field comparison - Is a small sensor actually "better" at getting high depth of field images? Wouldn't a full frame camera at f/8 and high ISO still perform easily as good as a small sensor camera wide open, simply due to the larger sensor?
Short answer is yes, long answer is mostly yes but its complicated and not directly due to reason you might think;
If you have a 2x crop factor between two sensors, then you need to stop down aperture by 2x to get same DOF.
"25mm f/4 ISO100" will directly translate to "50mm f/8 ISO400" if exposed correctly.
2x Crop factor also means sensor area is 2^2=4 times as large, assuming MP count is the same this would mean pixels (or subpixels) themselves have 4x area. Now if everything had scaled equally, 4x pixel size means 2stops worth more light gathering, but we already lost 2 stops of light intensity due to lower aperture, so it would balance it out and we'd get exact same quality.
However everything inside a CMOS sensor does not need to scale equally. There are complex circuitry required to 1- read the potential well voltage, 2- apply analog gain and 3- do analog-digtal conversions. These areas are not small, on cell phone sensors (BSI and stacked) they occuppy roughly the same area as photodiodes themselves. However when pixels get bigger, readout circuitry don't NEED to be bigger. So percentage "wasted" by their area is relatively smaller as the pixels grow in size.
When you quadruple pixel size, you can double (instead of quadrupling) this circuitry area to implement a dual gain circuitry and higher quality converters to reduce noise floor. And still get 4,66x bigger (instead of 4x) photowell size to get higher sensitivity to light. (This also broadly explains why lower MP cameras generally have better high ISO performance)
Or we can keep pixels at same size, but quadrupple the MP count to increase resolution.
Or apply a combination of both.
In every case answer is yes, a fullframe will still give better results than a smaller sensor. Difference between an APS-C and a Full frame would be purely an academic comparison, but as we go MFT and below, results will be noticable more and more.
Also we have to talk about lens. A fullframe lens at f/8 will have much better resolving power than a M43 lens at f/4. Its a matter of physics, no lens is perfect, smaller the aperture lesser the optical aberrations. However lens argument would work against full frame if aperture needs to below diffraction limit of the fullframe camera to achieve same DOF but somehow its above the limit of smaller sensor camera, in which case there MAY be some extreme edge cases where having large aperture lenses on tiny sensors that MAY work better than full frame.
@@batuhancokmar7330 Thank you for the comprehensive answer, i've been wondering about these effects for a while.
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 have m43 and shoot mostly landscape, and in that scenario more dof is better.
I've used Saal and not ever been disappointed.
I'll be sticking to my Olympus EM1 MkII with Olympus Pro lenses and of course my film cameras 😘
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
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.
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.
Thank you for this really good explained video. I own a m43 camera (Olympus) and at the beginning I needed much time to understand these things. With the time I learned what are the advantages and disadvantages of the camera. But your input with the lenses are interesting. I'm using some zoom lenses and some prime lenses and in most cases the prime lenses show a much sharper picture. Most pictures of the zoom lenses seems to be a bit blurry..
It might be good to note that the A7III has a crop factor of 1.01. It is the one of the smaller "full-frame" sensors.
Nikon 1 j5, amazing little camera. Just shame it wasn’t more robust. At the moment I still prefer it to my newer camera (a6700)
Nice presentation! If I may suggest one other consideration? When using a 17 mm lens on Micro 4/3 ( as example ) you will effectively get a 34mm results. However, the image will still have the same barrel distortion or pincushioning associated with a wide angle lens?
The distorsion is dependent of the formula of the lens. There are wide lenses with almost to no distrostion (like laowa wide angle)
Often distortion is the result of a compromise in the making of a wide for a big sensor. When trying to achieve a smaller image circle, lens builders achieve less distortion without complex optic formula. Lenses made specificaly for small sensors are cheaper and easier to conceive
To add to the answer, if a 17mm shows barrel distortion on a full frame sensor it will show as well on m43. But it's easy to make a 17mm without barrel distortion for a m43 sensor with a small projected image circle.
Quality wide angle glass doesn't have barrel distortion or pincushioning. Back in the film only days I got Canons L series 24mm f1.4 for the A1. I had a kodak projector and replaced the stock lens with a leica. Got the best 6ft projection screen I could find. Shot 25 ASA slide film. Absolutely 'perfect' and stunning images with no distortion.
Just got an A6700 last year - same thing, got Sonys 15mm g series. Absolutely enjoying viewing the images on an 8k monitor.
If you can afford it - always get the best glass you can - you won't have to 'worry' about such issues.
Depth of field is exactly the same for full frame and apsc if you want the same size and spend similar amounts of money. Full frame only gives you "more background blur" once you go for the super large and often expensive f1.4 primes or f2.8 zooms. So for most people, APSC is the smarter choice.
I’ve captured photo and video with every sensor size under the sun, and I love them all for different reasons. There are so many different use cases for photo and video that to me there is no “one sensor size to rule them all.”
For example, my dream travel camera would use a 1-inch sensor. Give me a 20-200 equivalent lens, IBIS that rivals Panasonic, weather sealing rivaling OM Systems, and a 10-bit video codec, and make it as small as possible given those constraints, and I would be in heaven.
Unfortunately, the smaller sensors are going away just as some of the best innovations are happening in camera development.
I don't want to start an argument or a discussion, but EVERYTHING is multiplied by the crop factor - the f stop included. Even if the lens is specifically made for the type of sensor, the focal length is still a crop factor of the full-frame with the same number. A Zuiko m4/3 lens 14-24 is not the same as 14-24 on a full frame. You get a completely different field of view.
Keep that in mind when choosing your sensor size and lenses.
I had 1/2.33" sensor as Nikon B700
Then I jumped to Sony A6400, and it was day to night even though I was a begginer back then.
Now I use A7-IV, to increase my lowlight photography and have more mpx to crop in post.
.. and don't me wrong, I love the quality of full frame images, as never before. But the weight increases every step'up, that takes down the fun of doing photography. And I don't talk about some portraits, weddings, landscapes, I talk about wildlife, with big lenses like Sony 200-600. Holding up 3,15 kg with front balance on your wrist, is no where to having fun. I also miss the 300 mm of focal length compared to my previous APS-C so I lose all my mpx in 80% of the situations, as I shoot now mostly in APS-C crop [14 mpx]. I am not unhappy, but it doesn't motivate me as much to go out and shoot if have to be honest..
... Now I would love to get OM-1 + 150-400 or 300 mm f4 with TC's.
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.
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!
I shot 25 percent of my short film noir with a Canon Elph 310 pocket camera. The rest with a Canon 5D Mark II. No one has ever noticed the difference. The added advantage of its 8x optical zoom, in body stabilization and depth of field in wide made tracking shots a breeze.
That's crazy good for the price! Might have to grab one...unless I win one, that is! 🤞
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.
@@_jbflickz is this because of sensor size or aren’t there also other factors? Pricewise the Fuji is closer to a sony a7 iii
@@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
@@_jbflickzI feel like that's more than sensor size disadvantage. Fuji is known for outdated AF and Sony is known for cutting edge AF.
A7 cameras have 1 stop of better noise performance and shallower DOF at the same F number, but it can be compensated with using a 1 stop bigger aperture on the Fuji. When you shoot with an f1.2 lens on a Sony, however, to get the same results you need a 0.95 lens on the Fuji. If you are aware of these, then you can be a happy user for both systems.
@@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.
I know a photographer making MAGICAL photos with Nikon D5100 and 85D lens....
I read about photographers using OM 1s at ISO 20,000 and making commercially acceptable photographs.I quit worrying about ISO.
I think it would be interesting to take a high resolution FF camera and use it to then crop the from the sensor pixels from the full sensor, 24x18 and 17.3x13mm and add those to the comparison. I think that an advantage of the smaller sensor is you cover the cropped area with more pixels. OTOH bigger sensors allow you to crop from any region to get the 20 or so megapixels you need (see Keith Cooper) and in any shape.
The Lumix S5 II and G9 Make II have 24, 25 megapixels respectively.
Im using fullframe , nikon z5 , sony a7c & canon r8 , because the price are similar or lower then M43 & apsc , love the focal reach of m43 & apsc though.
I think it is great to own 3 cameras full frame apsc mft. Full frame for wedding and portrait and low light and apsc for landscape portrait wedding,street photography . M4/3 for street photography wildlife,landscape and macro
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. 👍👏🙏
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)
If you spend the money on excellent expensive lenses with the wrong mount, you will end up in a severe financial loss. Just ask Sony A mount users, or Nikon 1 users. Without instax, Fujifilm camera business had been closed years ago. Even today I regard Fujifilm X mount and Nikon Z mount is at risk to invest into. Leica M is guaranteed for many long decades.
@@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.
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.
17:00 Keith Cooper is a commercial (architectural) photographer who talks a lot about big prints and printers to use to make them and how to use those printers. He disagrees about the number of pixels, though there are circumstances where more is better - Levon Biss is a British photographer who makes big (2 metres) prints with lots of details.
Keith is on CZcams.
I wanted to have something nice that I could comfortably carry for wildlife shots during my walks. It took me quite a long time to decide on M43. If all I needed was famuly photos APSC would have my choice. The quality is slightly better and it is not that much heavier. If I frequently need to take pics at low light then clearly full frame is the best, however, even if I do not mind that weight the price for the bigger glass is just too much for me.
Back in the day I was drooling over the Nikon 1 V1 but it was way out of my reach. Last week I finally got one second hand, together with the 10-30 lens and the flash.
I was pleasantly surprised by the image quality and color rendition of this old 10 MP sensor. and the lens turns out to have some limited macro capabilities as well
I've been saving up to get my first camera and lens, and watching your channel to get more information on the way. My plan is to pick up the Fujifilm XS10, but now I'm a bit confused with what lens/ lenses I should be starting with. I'd wanted to pick up one for street shots, one for portrait-- I was thinking 35 and 50, or something like that, after watching a bunch of these videos-- but now I'm not sure what length I should go for that avoids distorting faces for the portrait shots. You talk about focus/ blur stuff here, and the math you need to do as a result, but what about those type of distortions?
(even if you don't get a chance to answer this, I just want to say thanks for your channel. It's been so informative, and it's made me so excited to start this hobby)
I use the S-X10 as my everyday camera! May I suggest the SIGMA 18-50mm F2.8 DC DN Contemporary lens (it's a mouthful to say!)? It is reasonably priced and the f2.8 aperture is wide enough to get soft backgrounds for portraits. Yes, there is some distortion (inherently in all zoom lens) but it is not distracting and easily fixed in post. The great thing about mirrorless cameras is that you can see the results even before you take a picture. Math is not going to tell you if you need more background blur or if you have TOO much! As you have a wide range of shooting situations, having one zoom lens is more versatile and economic.
P.S. Yes, this is a very well explained comparison of sensor sizes. I actually switched from full frame to APS-C because I didn't like carrying the bulk and weight of FF lenses. Fujifilm has the quality and selection of lenses that covers what I need.
Most camera manufacturers have a class of lens which could be considered their premium lens. I can guarantee you won't have to worry about 'distortions' when you've paid good money for glass. And third party manufacturers will have their 'high' end ones.
To me it's the quality of the lens that is more important. Every time I have bought those extra pricey quality lens - I have never been disappointed.
To prove it to yourself - go ahead and get a few of the inexpensive lens sizes for your camera, including maybe one variable zoom.
Then after shooting for a while in which you find a particular branch of photography you find yourself enjoying and/or need to shoot the most.
Get a good quality lens in that one size.
You'll find yourself asking, why would I ever want to shoot in anything less.
On a very strict budget - I would tend to spend more money on glass and a bit less on the camera body rather than the other way around.
If it's not this particular copy, the Lumix 25mm lense is really bad :o
Unfortunately the lumix 25mm f1.7 is a very poor lens as it suffers from focus breathing quite badly. The alternative Olympus (yes Olympus is also M43 format too) 25mm f1.8 is far superior.
Thanks for the very neutral presentation 👍🏼
Although pity the M43 lens was a dud
12:45 The bad image quality of 25mm lens is due to focus shift at f/2.8. You should try to compare it at f/1.8 or > f/5.6.
12:20 - so strange, when you get a product to review and of course it came out good xD
I shoot leica and Fuji, just ordered an OM 5 because after borrowing one I was blown away by the little camera.
1" FTW, EDC is what gets it. I am happy that phones got also large (larger than the earlier P&S) and a RX100 is great for carrying all the time. The other formats are much "more" camera but it's an extra effort to carry.
I have shot m43 however and it's great for tele (35-100 2.8 that I got a great deal for). Some time I think of APS or FF but it's a large sum that in my current photography, doing instead medium format film, I would rather spend to cover other costs such as travel.
Your Leica 25mm is definitely off. The 20mm is quite a bit softer. I do have both and have done for years. Using the Leica wide open will make the corners a trifle soft. Shutting down the Leica to f/2.2 and up, (as you might do with the 20mm) it becomes incredibly sharp with an almost 3D quality in the right light. Quite possibly the sharpest MFT lens.
Great Video
Regarding the image quality comparison, the detail seemed to be pretty close for three of them with the second one being considerably worse, and before the reveal I'm going to assume this is down the lens rather the sensor. Without going back to check, I'm going to assume this is the APS-C Fuji just because that lens looked "cheaper" than the others.
I may very well be wrong in my choice, but the big question is: Was my methodology wrong?
Righto, my choice was wrong but the methodology was sound as I suspected.
You made a good attemp at expalining "crop factor" and the annoying "full-frame equivalent" notions, but I think you should have used a more simple notion that is usually forgotten: field of view. To get the same FoV that a 50mm has on FF, you need a 25mm on m4/3.
I shoot with 1/1.7, 1/2.3, 1", 4/3rd, APS-C. Not full frame. For me the sensor is important but not the entire equation. It really is all about what you pair with the sensor that makes the formula work. In this example, I absolutely LOVE my Panasonic LX7 cameras with their 1/1.7-inch sensor paired with a Leica Summilux F1.4 to F2.3 lens, which is so incredibly sharp you can focus to something touching the glass element on the lens and it will focus on it and nail the shot. It's the smallest sensor I shoot with, only 10mp but does the job so so well. Just as an example.