Good video. Many photographers (especially pros) choose multiple systems for the same reasons you do. When you're limited by both shutter speed and depth of field, such as in concert photography, there's frequently little to no advantage to having a larger-sensored camera/lens setup -- this is just how the physics of equivalence works. Additionally, the smaller/lighter kit allows you to enjoy shooting more and have less fatigue. Larger sensor kit has its unique strengths when conditions and subject matter allow one to shoot with shallow depth of field (thereby letting in more light through a wider aperture); when you can shoot at extremely low ISOs and longer exposure times to take in more light and get a better SnR image; when you need (or want) shallower depth of field at a given focal length and there's no equivalent lens in the smaller sensor system; and when you need more megapixels in the output (for cropping or enlargement). In other circumstances, the smaller-sensored system can often produce a roughly equivalent image which is usually "good enough" (or better) for the desired end use. As a hobbyist and former long-time APS-C owner, I've been perfectly content with m43 as my only system for the last 5 years. As RAW image processors and AI noise reduction have catapulted ahead in the last few years, I simply don't need better image or video quality, and the smaller/lighter overall kit (and less wasted disk space) is the compensation I happily enjoy.
Good to hear that a photographer finds the greater DoF of m43 to be advantageous! Mostly it is "not enough bokeh", when in reality results are actually very balanced with lenses like the tiny M.Zuiko 45mm F1.8.
100% agree, each sensor format has it's own pros and cons, which is why I have multiple, and unless I need to get razor thing DoF M43 is more than capable of doing the job in most cases. A larger sensor makes it easier to get, but its certainly not limited to certain sensors, and the lens has a much to do with it. A fast prime on M43 is going to get you a shallower DoF (for the same focal length) vs a slow kit zoom on a larger sensor.
That makes no sense to me. On a full frame or apsc you just have to close the aperture a bit and you get the same effect. Now the counter argument to that would be that in comparison you lose light by closing the aperture. That is true in theory, but in reality, you can easily compensate for that by increasing the ISO, which on a full frame is light years ahead in terms of noise compared to a micro 4/3. You would still end up with a cleaner image from a full frame. APSC is much closer to micro 4/3, but there is still a difference. Another thing I would like to address is size. That comparison between the Canon 5D and a small m4/3 camera is a little bit disingenuous. Having for example the Fujifilm XT30 with a 35mm f2 or a 27mm f2.8, or even a XE4 with the same lenses would be pretty comparable to a M43 camera. Even some full frame cameras are pretty small these days. For example the new Sony rangefinder style full frame camera or a Leica with a small lens on is just slightly bigger than a m43 camera. So I don't buy the size argument.
@@matangox the mirrorless bodies may be close in size, but lenses certainly aren't. Take the Sony FF as an example, the Sony FE 35mm f1.8 is over twice the weight, twice the length and a cm wider in diameter than the Lumix 20mm F1.8. These size differences only get greater as you go up the focal lengths. The Fuji 35mm is much closer in size to the Sony than to the Lumix. Nor is noise 'light years' ahead on FF, hyperbole doesn't really help make for a constructive discussion. Keep in mind I shoot FF, APS-C and M43, as such I'm not ideologicaly married to any of the three, my choice of format for gigs is based on real world factors that work for me.
@@gideonliddiardphotography 💯 % agreed on the shooting with more than 1 system / sensor size Makes you realise a lot about photography and technical aspects of it .. and probably « more intelligent » as a user of modern cameras 📷 Also no more of this « sensor war 😅 »
Thanks for your perspective, good to know other photographers are shooting indoor events with m43. Here in Cuenca, Ecuador, many restaurants are now featuring live music. I frequently get asked to photograph the live music and the restaurants and event spaces. Shooting with an e-m1 iii and olympus 12-40 2.8 and sometimes swapping out lens to 75mm 1.8 for longer shots in slightly larger venues. So my kit is heavier than yours but still not in full frame territory. You have inspired to me to drag out my ancient e-m5 so I don't have to switch lenses. I also forgot I do have a messenger bag more than big enough for both cameras. My go to editing software is dxo photolab 6 for fantastic noise reduction (frequently shoot at very high iso) and all-around editing capabilities. Like you I've never had complaints about quality of images coming from m43 sensors.
I popped in out of curiosity, I shoot concerts for bands and venues and other outlets, and I've never came across any other photogs shooting with MFT for paid live music and events. I would give it a go,as there is a claim the OM-1 is capable in lowlight but I don't think I could risk it for client work, but I have used Fujifilm in the past. Interesting non the less.
Informative, inspiring, candid, eloquent and artistic. Thank you for your contribution to the endless conversation about the unique art of photographing performers in action in low light and crowded spaces. Thank you also for reminding us, photographers and artists in general, how important it is to turn limitations into advantages (and there will always be limitations), which is really the foundation of any decent artistic practice. I shoot M43 and love shooting musicians and dancers. So far, the M43 system has produced for me often spectacular results, which at the end of the day might be what really matters. That is, your amazing photos speak for themselves. Thank you once again and hope to see many more videos from you inn which gear, craft and art are seen as an indivisible whole. Thank you too for elevating the level of gear talk, which can indeed be simply utterly boring.
Breath of fresh air and something of a relief.... I shot my first gig a few weeks ago (for a friends band) and used an E-M1 and a venerable Oly E-5. My usual shooting is landscape/environmental and long exposure night shooting in industrial facilities. I have very good quality fast glass - the six SHQ lenses Oly made for the 4/3 system along with the HQ lenses, the former being fixed aperture. But the 4/3 glass is big - i used the 14-35mm f/2 and the 35-100mm f/2, the latter weighing 1650g. So it's what i've got, and that's why i used it. But you've made it really clear to me that i could have got away nicely with the 50 f/2 Macro and the smaller zoom, which would have saved me from spending the next morning icing my wrist. I was actually pleasantly surprised by the IQ (even from the 12MP E-5) and everything that went wrong was definitely down to my inexperience and not the gear. Enjoyed your video very much, along with the excellent and evocative images. Lkd&Subd. All the very best from a cabin in a swamp in a rainforest in New Zealand.
Bottom line . YOU have to start out with a " Skill Set " whatever kind of gear you may take with you . Your photographs are both well composed , well lit , and correctly exposed . They are immersive and " Tell The Story " . Good on YOU , sir !
depth of field calculators really opened my eyes to micro four thirds once I realized I could open to f1.4 on a micro four thirds and still be able to keep focus on somebody compared to full frame. I now think m43 might be the best for low light video, given a wide enough aperture, vs full frame where the focal plane is too thin and you have to stop down
Great video mate, this addresses one of the biggest concerns I've had about MFTs. I really appreciate how many of your own photographs you've shown off in the video, as a lot of people on here can talk about tech specs and little pixel nitpicks all day, but so many seem to never provide personal and real thoughts as well as practical work like you have. Love most of the images you shared with us. Cheers.
Since Topaz DeNoise / Photo AI Noise is a non-issue for me when using M43. Having that extra step is a good trade against less weight, smaller gear and quite honestly lower equipment cost. And yes, I also love the 45mm lens, it's so fun to use and gives just excellent images. I would be very interested in the editing process.
Wow, I couldn't have said it better myself. What a great video. My experience is really close to yours. I started shooting clubs using an old Canon Rebel APSC setup, but I wasn't happy with the results. Being a little naive I got a 5D and used that for a couple of years. I was really happy with the improved IQ, but man that kit gets really heavy by the end of the evening. I do use it for other work like landscapes. But one time I took my GX7 to a gig (yes, it was my first M43 too) with the OLY 45 (and yes, I really love that lens!!!), and I was surprised at how good the results were. It took a little learning curve to improve my techniques, but essentially I've never looked back. I have a Lumix G9 as well now and I pretty much use the same ideas as you outlined in the video. I can agree with everything you said, and especially the depth of field comments - I think that's a huge advantage (not a detraction) of M43 for this type of work. I love your photos --- I find them inspiring. Thanks so much for putting this together, I really appreciated it.
Many thanks, and it great to hear such a similar experience. 30 years ago I used to lug around a Canon T90 and F1 combo, no way my back would survive that in a venue these days, particularity as I like to get low for some shots and my knees complain enough as it is. Really chuffed to hear you kind words regarding my work and finding it inspiring, means a lot.
@@gideonliddiardphotography Wow a T90/F1 combo. Reminds me of my college days shooting clubs with a Minolta SR7/SRT101 combo. Close but not quite as heavy as the Canons (I still have my ESO-1N that I shoot occasionally). That was TRI-X all the time - never enough light back then.
I do much the same - just a little different. I shoot at a local small venue with room for 50-100 people, but with lower light, than a club or pub. My camera of choice is the GX8, and I use the 20mm f1.7 and 45mm f1.8 (with the Panasonic 25mm f1.7 as a backup). I shoot with wide open aperture, 1/60 - 1/125 and auto ISO limited to 12800. As far as white balance goes, I never use auto - I set a custom WB and stick to it for the entire evening, because auto WB is no good when the stage lights keep changing. And of course, I use spot metering - and very important - I shoot in silent mode with the electronic shutter. Last time I photographed at a concert, I got keepers at ISO 8000, and I felt no need to edit much at all - other than cropping a bit. I set my camera to both RAW and jpg, and I was happy I did the last time I photographed at a concert as the jpg files looked great, while the RAW files were quite terrible. The MFT prime lenses are small, light, sharp and fast and even with the GX8, it means my kit is small and highly portable. It's exactly what I need for my venue of choice.
Great shots. Totally with you. Also though, I noticed a lot of those m43 bodies focus as well or better than top end DSLRs in low light, around -5ev. Really enjoy the freedom to hold the camera one-handed, way above my head, screen out, maybe even a beer in my other hand, and get high quality, emotive shots. M43 does that for me. On expense, I'm now at a point where I've got more money sunk into m43 than my FF gear, but it still makes more sense more of the time - it's more liberating to use.
Many thanks, and I 100% agree, M43's lowlight performance and being able to see exactly what you're getting is great (well it's a modern mirrorless benefit really, but M43 does it so well in a small package).
It’s about time someone pointed out the benefits of MFT depth of field. I don’t even have a MFT camera but my 1” Sony has this benefit where my FF camera gets a lash in focus.
I'm also an MFT club/ music/ nightlife shooter and agree with all of your points The venues love my stuff, the subjects love my stuff, and my own dissatisfactions are usually my failures ..not the equipment. Not a lot of us out there. I need to invest in that Panasonic prime...the 2.8 12-35 is my default lens on my g95 or g95.
I am not a gig shooter but I do have the 20mm f1.7 and 14mm f2.5 lenses. Lightweight pancake lenses, cheap, very sharp and plenty fast enough. Only negative is flare from sunshine directly into the lens. I prefer these to my 12-60mm zoom which I keep mainly for versatility.
Ah! Another M43 gig photographer👍 I started with the Lumix GF6 (!) and 25mm f1.4 summilux shooting local bands and some not so local. I went up to the GX7 but now use 2 Lumix G9's and my go to lenses are the 10-25mm f1.7 Lumix and 75mm f1.8 Olympus prime which is so sharp it stings! also in the bag is the olympus 45mm f1.8 prime - an absolute steal at around the £120 mark second hand. My kit is hardly pocketable but still within the realms of 'lightweight' when comparing to FF. As for PP I use DXO Photolab, Nik Collection and Topaz sharpener and sometimes Gigapixel if I've cropped and want to enlarge. I'm itching to get my hands on the G9ii when it comes out next month!.... Keep Music Live!
An interesting video. To be honest I expect some noise on an image in the low light in those situations. That's probably due to the fact that that's how this sort of image looked years ago before we had digital editing. It's sort of how it's supposed to look in some ways, certainly for me anyway. As for the noise on the Olympus looking almost like film but not quite, I would just look at from the opposite perspective. Film doesn't give noise that looks the same as the Olympus. I feel it's best to just see them as different.
You and I use the same lenses at the same type of gigs! I use two Lumix g85's. Do find the focusing a tad problematic at times. Seriously considering splashing some cash on the G9ll. I always use the electronic shutter as this causes less disruption in gigs, particularly acoustic ones!
Great video and Interesting what you say about DOF and I agree. Also interested in your editing workflow. I also use MFT for video and stills for gigs.Use the 12-40 F2.8, 25mm f1.8 and the 45mm f1.8. Had great results with the EM1 MKII and the EM10 MKIII. Got some great footage in The Dublin Castle in Camden and other venues. I don't have an issue with noise at high ISO as this has always been an issue with music photography even in the film days. Some bands actually want me to add more noise. Small size and outstanding OIS is a deal maker. Subscribed.
Lovely video! I shoot for a local band’s insta page and use a gh5 with a 35-100 f2.8 and a gx85 with either a lumix/Leica 25mm f1.4 or a Rokinon 12mm f2. Both cameras perform beyond adequately at high ISO settings and the shots I get are great. I’m impressed you can get such intimate shots with such wide lenses for concerts! I’d love to see a vid on how you approach shooting a show with these focal lengths (you may have this, i haven’t checked yet). I often feel like reaching for my 100-300 at my gigs, but typically don’t, since it’s too slow.
Many thanks. I don't have a video on shooting as close as I do, I will have to see what I can put together. I am mainly shooting in pubs, clubs, bars, and cafes however, most of which I know very well, so getting close is easier in that regard (one pub I shoot in, it's literally the only option). The difficult bit then is making sure I'm not getting in the way of the band and audience, which involves a lot of time being pressed up against walls, sitting on the floor, crouching next to risers, and in one venue, the occasional shot from outside through a window!
Very interesting. Agree with everything you said. I always use two bodies and two primes. I use Canon FF (6D and RP) with a 40mm and 85mm. Last gig I also used a 16mm which was surprisingly useful (audience and performers taken from behind the stage or slightly in front). I go up to ISO 12,800 on some shots. Yes it's heavy but I put my bag down backstage so I can walk around with just two bodies. I also own two Panasonic bodies and have wondered if I could use them for concerts. Probably with my 15mm f/1.7 and a 42.5mm f/1.7 (do not currently own). In addition to size, M4/3 has better highlight control and better face recognition. One issue in larger events is whether you will be taken seriously by performers, gatekeepers etc carrying two small consumer cameras when all the other photographers are using large professional gear. Sometimes you just need to look the part to get access.
A very good point on the being taken seriously, I'm fortunate that I'm working in small venues that I know well. If I wasn't it could well become a factor.
I find Micro 4/3 to be more fun (and convenient) to use. And with RAW files and Photoshop AI technology any potential compromises in low light conditions can usually be fixed quickly.
Many thanks, I've often thought about taking along something wider, but held off as in all but one venue the 45mm gets the most use. One I will end up taking at some point is my 7.5mm!
Interesting, I hadn't considered the reduced DoF in this context. I would very much like to see how you are working with these images in post. I'm not in my comfort zone with post work. Thanks for another great, real world video.
Love the kit and photos ❤️. Quick question ive been wondering, does the panansonic lens work just as well on the olympus body? And vice versa? Thanks Gideon.
Great video, your photos are amazing and speak for themselves. Very inspiring for me to use my current gear more (and visits gigs more 😅). I have some questions to learn from you: - nailing the exposure at high iso is indeed important but I struggle with it when it comes to bright lights and skin/people, do you spot meter on people? - with a lot of mixed lights and dark venues, how do you set your whitebalance?
Btw its great to see such an experienced photographer like you use the 20mm and 45mm. These are the reason I switched to m43 when I was surprised with the results I got when borrowing a kit. I still love them dearly, they remind me of a contax g2 kit I would love to use one day with those excellent and small 40&90mm lenses.
Many thanks for the feedback, great to hear you like the images. In regard to exposure, as I know I will be sacrificing the blacks and shadows in post I tend to stick to the ESP metering, with M43 being mirrorless it also gives you a real-time view of roughly what the exposure will be like, so I use that with exposure compensation. In regard to White balance, I stick to auto and correct in post, too much is generally changing at a gig to manage it at the time. That said my E-M1 I rarely need to correct, as it does a great job, my GX-7 not quite as good, but even with that corrections are minor. Hope that helps :-)
It's the combination of the speed in terms of f-stop and the size that I love about them. when I shot gigs I make a point of being as unobtrusive as I can be, so the smaller kit helps a lot. Neither the musicians or audience want to see a massive camera lens being shoved in a singers, etc. face.
The issue with the Olympus f1.8 primes is their relatively low light transmission. F1.8 on those lenses exposes darker at the same shutter speed compared with f1.8 on the equivalent f1.2 Pro lens. This doesn't sound important, but it can mean the difference of freezing motion in challenging light conditions while keeping ISO reasonable.
Regarding the noise aspect that you touch on: if, as you say, you would not want the depth of field to be any shallower, then shooting on full frame would not give you any less noise. Your f1.7 on MFT would become f3.4 on FF thereby resulting in four times higher ISO.
Very true, but keep in mind that not all cameras (often regardless of sensor size) will give the same degree of noise at the same ISO or even differing ISOs.
If a light meter says F1.7 it is referring to light per unit area, not per full frame area. It does not care if it is FF, APSC, M43 or whatever, it is still f1.7, not f3.4. The world does not rotate around full frame.
@@LonStar3000 Yes I know, I'm not really saying that. What I meant was that if you actually want depth of field, then the better low light performance that you get with FF gets cancelled out because you have to stop down on FF to get the same depth of field. So if you wanted, say, "f8 of depth of field" (in FF terms) for a given scene, you would set your aperture to f4 on M43 thereby letting in more light and thus requiring a lower ISO. Example: A scene shot at f8 and 3200 ISO on FF would be f4 and 800 ISO on M43. This gives the same depth of field and about the same amount of noise.
In a totally different scenario, I would guess that being able to carry two bodies with a different lens on each to save changing would be an advantage if you're an area with dust. If you can avoid, or at least minimise lens changing, then there's less chance of getting dust in the camera.
Very interesting video!!! (And very good photos!!) You have a new subscriber!! 😉👍🏻 When you're at concerts, what type of light metering do you use? Spot, center or matrix? And what about AF, how do you use it? Maybe you set it up differently on the Olympus than on the Panasonic
Thanks for the sub! For metering I stick with spot for gigs with a lot of stage lights, and for more evenly lit pubs and bars I go for matrix. One of the great things about mirrorless is you get a good idea through the viewfinder of what the exposures going to be like, so I then use exposure compensation and eyeball it. For AF, you are right I do use different approaches with the two bodies. The Lumix GX-7 I use the pinpoint AF mode, as the AF isn't as good on it, which does mean a degree of focus and recompose with it. The E-M1 I use single point AF tracking, which gets it right the majority of the time, but I do on occasion override both with MF if needed.
To a degree yes, but a lot of the time with the lighting you just have to accept that you're going to have some blown-out highlights that you might never get back. I go into how I shoot gigs with M43 in this video czcams.com/video/ub--o-yU9pA/video.html
Many thanks, all shit without a flash, these days shooting a gig with flash would be a good way to get asked to leave. I've another video that runs through how I shoot gigs, take a look at that for more info.
First class shots Gideon and a very interesting and helpful video! I’d be very interested to know if you specify a minimum shutter speed and if you use spot metering etc etc. Best wishes.
Many thanks. I normally run in aperture priority with lenses pretty much wide open and auto-ISO, watching for any drop below 1/60 of a second (unless I want blur in the final image). The image stabilisation on the Lumix and Olympus/OM bodies helps out at the lower speeds. As far as metering goes I will switch between matrix and spot depending on the venue and lighting (direct stage lights I go for spot and more open lighting in a pub/bar I go for matrix). However, with mirrorless bodies showing you what he final image will (roughly) look like, I then tend to 'eyeball' it through the viewfinder and adjust with exposure compensation as needed.
Thanks for the reply. Regarding shutter speed, I was thinking of movement on stage, rather than ibis to minimise camera shake. However your reply is helpful and makes complete sense.
I only have m43 gear so it's not as if I'm criticizing the format, but I disagree with what you say about the advantage over larger formats as far as aperture goes when compared to larger formats. True at any given aperture number, m43 will have greater depth of field, but since a larger format is less noisy, you can do the same thing with a smaller aperture and not have a the same noise issues by increasing the ISO. A bigger format really just allows for shallower DOF, when you want it. It allows for greater flexibility with DOF...
I've already gone into detail about this in another comment, and it's simply not true. With comparable sensor tech M43 maintains an advantage not only in regard to Signal to Noise, but also dynamic range, tonal range and colour sensitivity. The DX0 Mark analysis you can find here clearly show as much www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D750-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II___975_1106_1136
I'm my experience, even though they are technically interchangeable, using an Olympus lens on an Olympus body and a Lumix lens on a Lumix body gives your better autofocus - but it's just my experience.
Good video and nice images. I own the two cameras you use … you say that you use auto ISO but the GX7 doesn’t have that function … am I wrong ? Thanks 👍
First make sure your not in full manual mode, as this locks out Auto-ISO on the GX-7 (and quite a few other cameras), then press the Q. Menu button (mapped to Fn.1 as standard and select ISO from the bottom ribbon menu. That gives you the ability to set Auto ISO, or select a specific ISO. You can also set the Auto ISO limit using Page 5 of the 'Rec' menu (the one with the camera as its icon), I have mine set to 12,800. From the same page you can also set the ISO increments (1 or 1/3 stop - mine is 1/3) and if you want to extend the ISO (yes for me). Or you can quickly set them by pressing Up on the D-pad, which gives you access to change all of them.
It's going to vary quite significantly depending on the available light, I talk more about the process, etc in this video czcams.com/video/ub--o-yU9pA/video.html
For me mFT works for nearly everything - people, nature, architecture, landscape - now more than ever, as sensor technology, processor technology and raw converters have become so much better. I just can't see a rationale reason to shoot full frame, for at least 95% of purposes.
quite agree, for most purposes sensor size has become a lot less of an issue these days.
Před 11 měsíci+1
Señor, con todo respeto, las razones que da, aplican a tecnología de hace 8 años, le presento esta bonita marca de cámaras fullframe pequeñas y lentes pequeños, llamada Sony, dese la oportunidad de usar la serie a7c.
For ISO in most cases I leave it set to auto, and depending on the lighting conditions it will normally range between 640 as a lower level and 6,400 as an upper level. I have on occasions manually taken it as high as 12,800, but that is rarely needed.
@@OutRAjiousI normally shoot in aperture priority (and adjust via exposure compensation), mostly wide open, as a result, shutter speeds tend to range from 1/60 to around 1/125.
Argument of the wider depth of field is coming back again and again and I simply don't get it. It makes no sense. There is always a possibility to stop down on the aperture and get the desired depth of field. There is absolutely no advantage for mft in that regard. This system is relatively cheap and compact and these are the only "real" advantages over larger formats.
Oh dear. Stopping down will require either a slower shutter speed or a higher ISO, neither of which is desirable when shooting in the specific environments I'm looking at in this video. For shooting gigs it is an advantage for me, it's not the only one, but it most certainly is one.
@@gideonliddiardphotography Yes Mr. Obvious. Stopping down will require higher ISO which gonna get compensated by better noise performance of the larger formats so at the end the image quality will be exactly the same (give or take, sensor technology is a factor) . You are getting smaller and cheaper kit, that's it. DoF "advantage" is just a mantra
@@pawelbrzozowski3899 I shoot both formats (well actually far more than that), the larger sensor = better noise performance isn't as significant as FF groupies would like to believe (sensor age and technology are much more significant factors - making the size = better claim pretty much moot). I get it, you don't like M43, in which case the video in question isn't for you, that's fine.
@@gideonliddiardphotography Don't like it? I own it. I'm just aware of what is happening when I'm pressing the shutter button. If one will shoot mft at 1600 iso and f4, to get the same depth of field on a (for example) full frame camera f/8 and iso 6400 is needed. And yes, mft iso 1600 and FF iso 6400 will look the same. So where is this mythical depth of field advantage? Nowhere. You are just misleading people.
@pawelbrzozowski3899 How on earth can I be misleading people on a video titled "why I use M43 to shoot gigs", did you miss the I part of the title? I would also love to see the proof behind noise looking the same between M43 1600 and FF 6400, that's an assumption and generalisation rather than the factual statement it's been presented as (and also ignores that NR works more effectively the lower the ISO is as well). I've just looked at the DP test results comparing the Em-1 Mk2, the 5DMkIV, and D750 (broadly contemporary models), and the 1600/6400 test results (corrected for crop as well - which favours the FF models) shows more noise (particularly croma) present for the FF at 6400 compared to the M43 at 1600, at 6400/25600 the difference is even clearer (and DX0 Mark SNR18% charts back that up). At the same ISO FF 100% has a clear noise advantage, but with equivalence factored in that advantage (in this one and very specific situation) isn't present, rather the opposite is true.
Good video. Many photographers (especially pros) choose multiple systems for the same reasons you do. When you're limited by both shutter speed and depth of field, such as in concert photography, there's frequently little to no advantage to having a larger-sensored camera/lens setup -- this is just how the physics of equivalence works. Additionally, the smaller/lighter kit allows you to enjoy shooting more and have less fatigue. Larger sensor kit has its unique strengths when conditions and subject matter allow one to shoot with shallow depth of field (thereby letting in more light through a wider aperture); when you can shoot at extremely low ISOs and longer exposure times to take in more light and get a better SnR image; when you need (or want) shallower depth of field at a given focal length and there's no equivalent lens in the smaller sensor system; and when you need more megapixels in the output (for cropping or enlargement). In other circumstances, the smaller-sensored system can often produce a roughly equivalent image which is usually "good enough" (or better) for the desired end use.
As a hobbyist and former long-time APS-C owner, I've been perfectly content with m43 as my only system for the last 5 years. As RAW image processors and AI noise reduction have catapulted ahead in the last few years, I simply don't need better image or video quality, and the smaller/lighter overall kit (and less wasted disk space) is the compensation I happily enjoy.
Thanks, and I quite agree.
Your photos are beautiful with a journalistic flair. Your local newspaper should hire you if only as a freelance photographer.
Many thanks
Good to hear that a photographer finds the greater DoF of m43 to be advantageous! Mostly it is "not enough bokeh", when in reality results are actually very balanced with lenses like the tiny M.Zuiko 45mm F1.8.
100% agree, each sensor format has it's own pros and cons, which is why I have multiple, and unless I need to get razor thing DoF M43 is more than capable of doing the job in most cases. A larger sensor makes it easier to get, but its certainly not limited to certain sensors, and the lens has a much to do with it. A fast prime on M43 is going to get you a shallower DoF (for the same focal length) vs a slow kit zoom on a larger sensor.
you need a great amount of depth of field to cover the whole stage, otherwise the image is not realistic.
That makes no sense to me. On a full frame or apsc you just have to close the aperture a bit and you get the same effect. Now the counter argument to that would be that in comparison you lose light by closing the aperture. That is true in theory, but in reality, you can easily compensate for that by increasing the ISO, which on a full frame is light years ahead in terms of noise compared to a micro 4/3. You would still end up with a cleaner image from a full frame.
APSC is much closer to micro 4/3, but there is still a difference.
Another thing I would like to address is size. That comparison between the Canon 5D and a small m4/3 camera is a little bit disingenuous. Having for example the Fujifilm XT30 with a 35mm f2 or a 27mm f2.8, or even a XE4 with the same lenses would be pretty comparable to a M43 camera. Even some full frame cameras are pretty small these days. For example the new Sony rangefinder style full frame camera or a Leica with a small lens on is just slightly bigger than a m43 camera. So I don't buy the size argument.
@@matangox the mirrorless bodies may be close in size, but lenses certainly aren't. Take the Sony FF as an example, the Sony FE 35mm f1.8 is over twice the weight, twice the length and a cm wider in diameter than the Lumix 20mm F1.8. These size differences only get greater as you go up the focal lengths. The Fuji 35mm is much closer in size to the Sony than to the Lumix. Nor is noise 'light years' ahead on FF, hyperbole doesn't really help make for a constructive discussion. Keep in mind I shoot FF, APS-C and M43, as such I'm not ideologicaly married to any of the three, my choice of format for gigs is based on real world factors that work for me.
@@gideonliddiardphotography
💯 % agreed on the shooting with more than 1 system / sensor size
Makes you realise a lot about photography and technical aspects of it .. and probably « more intelligent » as a user of modern cameras 📷
Also no more of this « sensor war 😅 »
It's all about atmosphere and feel Gideon. Your photos deliver bucket-loads of that
Many thanks :-)
Thanks for your perspective, good to know other photographers are shooting indoor events with m43. Here in Cuenca, Ecuador, many restaurants are now featuring live music. I frequently get asked to photograph the live music and the restaurants and event spaces. Shooting with an e-m1 iii and olympus 12-40 2.8 and sometimes swapping out lens to 75mm 1.8 for longer shots in slightly larger venues. So my kit is heavier than yours but still not in full frame territory. You have inspired to me to drag out my ancient e-m5 so I don't have to switch lenses. I also forgot I do have a messenger bag more than big enough for both cameras. My go to editing software is dxo photolab 6 for fantastic noise reduction (frequently shoot at very high iso) and all-around editing capabilities. Like you I've never had complaints about quality of images coming from m43 sensors.
Many thanks and great to hear from someone else using M43 in the same situations, would love to see some of your work, can you let me have a link?
I popped in out of curiosity, I shoot concerts for bands and venues and other outlets, and I've never came across any other photogs shooting with MFT for paid live music and events.
I would give it a go,as there is a claim the OM-1 is capable in lowlight but I don't think I could risk it for client work, but I have used Fujifilm in the past.
Interesting non the less.
Informative, inspiring, candid, eloquent and artistic. Thank you for your contribution to the endless conversation about the unique art of photographing performers in action in low light and crowded spaces. Thank you also for reminding us, photographers and artists in general, how important it is to turn limitations into advantages (and there will always be limitations), which is really the foundation of any decent artistic practice. I shoot M43 and love shooting musicians and dancers. So far, the M43 system has produced for me often spectacular results, which at the end of the day might be what really matters. That is, your amazing photos speak for themselves. Thank you once again and hope to see many more videos from you inn which gear, craft and art are seen as an indivisible whole. Thank you too for elevating the level of gear talk, which can indeed be simply utterly boring.
Thank you so much for your kind words, it honestly means a lot. Hopefully you will find my future content as interesting.
Breath of fresh air and something of a relief.... I shot my first gig a few weeks ago (for a friends band) and used an E-M1 and a venerable Oly E-5. My usual shooting is landscape/environmental and long exposure night shooting in industrial facilities. I have very good quality fast glass - the six SHQ lenses Oly made for the 4/3 system along with the HQ lenses, the former being fixed aperture. But the 4/3 glass is big - i used the 14-35mm f/2 and the 35-100mm f/2, the latter weighing 1650g. So it's what i've got, and that's why i used it. But you've made it really clear to me that i could have got away nicely with the 50 f/2 Macro and the smaller zoom, which would have saved me from spending the next morning icing my wrist. I was actually pleasantly surprised by the IQ (even from the 12MP E-5) and everything that went wrong was definitely down to my inexperience and not the gear. Enjoyed your video very much, along with the excellent and evocative images. Lkd&Subd. All the very best from a cabin in a swamp in a rainforest in New Zealand.
Great to hear and thanks for the sub. :-)
Bottom line . YOU have to start out with a " Skill Set " whatever kind of gear you may take with you . Your photographs are both well composed , well lit , and correctly exposed . They are immersive and " Tell The Story " . Good on YOU , sir !
Many thanks for your incredibly kind work.
depth of field calculators really opened my eyes to micro four thirds once I realized I could open to f1.4 on a micro four thirds and still be able to keep focus on somebody compared to full frame. I now think m43 might be the best for low light video, given a wide enough aperture, vs full frame where the focal plane is too thin and you have to stop down
Great to hear!
Great video mate, this addresses one of the biggest concerns I've had about MFTs. I really appreciate how many of your own photographs you've shown off in the video, as a lot of people on here can talk about tech specs and little pixel nitpicks all day, but so many seem to never provide personal and real thoughts as well as practical work like you have. Love most of the images you shared with us. Cheers.
Great to hear!
Since Topaz DeNoise / Photo AI Noise is a non-issue for me when using M43. Having that extra step is a good trade against less weight, smaller gear and quite honestly lower equipment cost. And yes, I also love the 45mm lens, it's so fun to use and gives just excellent images.
I would be very interested in the editing process.
Agreed on all points, and many thanks for the feedback. I will look to put a video together on the editing process
Hi Gideon, at the end of the day it's the right tool for the job and you have cracked it.
Many thanks, it certainly works for me.
Thanks. I use the Micro 4/3 most of the time for exactly the same reasons. This system has its advantages. Thanks once more.
No problem!
Cool. Old East German Praktica cameras on your shelf 🤓
Yep - Praktica's are what I started with back in the 90's, still have a soft spot for them.
@@gideonliddiardphotography Me too 😃
Excellent live gig pictures, Gideon!
Thank you, glad you like them!
Wow, I couldn't have said it better myself. What a great video. My experience is really close to yours. I started shooting clubs using an old Canon Rebel APSC setup, but I wasn't happy with the results. Being a little naive I got a 5D and used that for a couple of years. I was really happy with the improved IQ, but man that kit gets really heavy by the end of the evening. I do use it for other work like landscapes. But one time I took my GX7 to a gig (yes, it was my first M43 too) with the OLY 45 (and yes, I really love that lens!!!), and I was surprised at how good the results were. It took a little learning curve to improve my techniques, but essentially I've never looked back. I have a Lumix G9 as well now and I pretty much use the same ideas as you outlined in the video. I can agree with everything you said, and especially the depth of field comments - I think that's a huge advantage (not a detraction) of M43 for this type of work. I love your photos --- I find them inspiring. Thanks so much for putting this together, I really appreciated it.
Many thanks, and it great to hear such a similar experience. 30 years ago I used to lug around a Canon T90 and F1 combo, no way my back would survive that in a venue these days, particularity as I like to get low for some shots and my knees complain enough as it is. Really chuffed to hear you kind words regarding my work and finding it inspiring, means a lot.
@@gideonliddiardphotography Wow a T90/F1 combo. Reminds me of my college days shooting clubs with a Minolta SR7/SRT101 combo. Close but not quite as heavy as the Canons (I still have my ESO-1N that I shoot occasionally). That was TRI-X all the time - never enough light back then.
I agree with the DOF/aperture, size, etc is a real advantage for MFT. I also like that for APS-C also. I have no need for Full Frame.
I do much the same - just a little different.
I shoot at a local small venue with room for 50-100 people, but with lower light, than a club or pub. My camera of choice is the GX8, and I use the 20mm f1.7 and 45mm f1.8 (with the Panasonic 25mm f1.7 as a backup).
I shoot with wide open aperture, 1/60 - 1/125 and auto ISO limited to 12800. As far as white balance goes, I never use auto - I set a custom WB and stick to it for the entire evening, because auto WB is no good when the stage lights keep changing. And of course, I use spot metering - and very important - I shoot in silent mode with the electronic shutter.
Last time I photographed at a concert, I got keepers at ISO 8000, and I felt no need to edit much at all - other than cropping a bit. I set my camera to both RAW and jpg, and I was happy I did the last time I photographed at a concert as the jpg files looked great, while the RAW files were quite terrible.
The MFT prime lenses are small, light, sharp and fast and even with the GX8, it means my kit is small and highly portable. It's exactly what I need for my venue of choice.
I've tried electronic shutter, but after a batch got messed up with rolling shutter issues I avoid it now.
Fabulous images & I agree the DOF on M43 for the shooting I do is an advantage. I almost never need razor thin DOF. Great Video v honest appraisal
Thanks :-)
Great shots. Totally with you. Also though, I noticed a lot of those m43 bodies focus as well or better than top end DSLRs in low light, around -5ev. Really enjoy the freedom to hold the camera one-handed, way above my head, screen out, maybe even a beer in my other hand, and get high quality, emotive shots. M43 does that for me.
On expense, I'm now at a point where I've got more money sunk into m43 than my FF gear, but it still makes more sense more of the time - it's more liberating to use.
Many thanks, and I 100% agree, M43's lowlight performance and being able to see exactly what you're getting is great (well it's a modern mirrorless benefit really, but M43 does it so well in a small package).
Agreed! All you need for events is the 20 and 45.
Thanks, they certainly meet all my needs.
It’s about time someone pointed out the benefits of MFT depth of field. I don’t even have a MFT camera but my 1” Sony has this benefit where my FF camera gets a lash in focus.
I'm also an MFT club/ music/ nightlife shooter and agree with all of your points The venues love my stuff, the subjects love my stuff, and my own dissatisfactions are usually my failures ..not the equipment. Not a lot of us out there. I need to invest in that Panasonic prime...the 2.8 12-35 is my default lens on my g95 or g95.
I am not a gig shooter but I do have the 20mm f1.7 and 14mm f2.5 lenses. Lightweight pancake lenses, cheap, very sharp and plenty fast enough. Only negative is flare from sunshine directly into the lens. I prefer these to my 12-60mm zoom which I keep mainly for versatility.
Ah! Another M43 gig photographer👍 I started with the Lumix GF6 (!) and 25mm f1.4 summilux shooting local bands and some not so local. I went up to the GX7 but now use 2 Lumix G9's and my go to lenses are the 10-25mm f1.7 Lumix and 75mm f1.8 Olympus prime which is so sharp it stings! also in the bag is the olympus 45mm f1.8 prime - an absolute steal at around the £120 mark second hand. My kit is hardly pocketable but still within the realms of 'lightweight' when comparing to FF. As for PP I use DXO Photolab, Nik Collection and Topaz sharpener and sometimes Gigapixel if I've cropped and want to enlarge. I'm itching to get my hands on the G9ii when it comes out next month!.... Keep Music Live!
Yep, these days M43 is just built for gigs in my mind, and 100% agree about the 45mm, stunning little lens.
Enjoying these, I am on similar path as you, film, M43, and Nikon Full Frame. It’s all fun!
It 100% is.
Excellent inspiration , thank you , subscribed 😊👍👍👍👍👍📷 .
Awesome, thank you for the sub.
Love to see your editing workflow
Coming soon!
Very nice video. Not what I normally shoot, but this was very educational.
Many thanks, great to hear.
80 percent of my shoots are with m43 for concerts and the like, with the right lens it makes it a good option.
Totally agree.
An interesting video.
To be honest I expect some noise on an image in the low light in those situations. That's probably due to the fact that that's how this sort of image looked years ago before we had digital editing. It's sort of how it's supposed to look in some ways, certainly for me anyway.
As for the noise on the Olympus looking almost like film but not quite, I would just look at from the opposite perspective. Film doesn't give noise that looks the same as the Olympus. I feel it's best to just see them as different.
100% agree, a good shot is a good shot, regardless of noise.
Excellent video nice photos
Many thanks
You and I use the same lenses at the same type of gigs! I use two Lumix g85's. Do find the focusing a tad problematic at times. Seriously considering splashing some cash on the G9ll. I always use the electronic shutter as this causes less disruption in gigs, particularly acoustic ones!
Lovely images!
Many thanks!
Fascinating video. Interesting to see how far you push the ISO. I’ll certainly have to try this now.
Many thanks. Give it a go, embrace the noise
Great video and Interesting what you say about DOF and I agree. Also interested in your editing workflow. I also use MFT for video and stills for gigs.Use the 12-40 F2.8, 25mm f1.8 and the 45mm f1.8. Had great results with the EM1 MKII and the EM10 MKIII. Got some great footage in The Dublin Castle in Camden and other venues. I don't have an issue with noise at high ISO as this has always been an issue with music photography even in the film days. Some bands actually want me to add more noise. Small size and outstanding OIS is a deal maker. Subscribed.
Many thanks for the sub, and 100% agree with what you've said. Editing video is on the list :-)
Lovely video! I shoot for a local band’s insta page and use a gh5 with a 35-100 f2.8 and a gx85 with either a lumix/Leica 25mm f1.4 or a Rokinon 12mm f2. Both cameras perform beyond adequately at high ISO settings and the shots I get are great. I’m impressed you can get such intimate shots with such wide lenses for concerts! I’d love to see a vid on how you approach shooting a show with these focal lengths (you may have this, i haven’t checked yet). I often feel like reaching for my 100-300 at my gigs, but typically don’t, since it’s too slow.
Many thanks. I don't have a video on shooting as close as I do, I will have to see what I can put together. I am mainly shooting in pubs, clubs, bars, and cafes however, most of which I know very well, so getting close is easier in that regard (one pub I shoot in, it's literally the only option). The difficult bit then is making sure I'm not getting in the way of the band and audience, which involves a lot of time being pressed up against walls, sitting on the floor, crouching next to risers, and in one venue, the occasional shot from outside through a window!
Very interesting. Agree with everything you said. I always use two bodies and two primes. I use Canon FF (6D and RP) with a 40mm and 85mm. Last gig I also used a 16mm which was surprisingly useful (audience and performers taken from behind the stage or slightly in front). I go up to ISO 12,800 on some shots. Yes it's heavy but I put my bag down backstage so I can walk around with just two bodies. I also own two Panasonic bodies and have wondered if I could use them for concerts. Probably with my 15mm f/1.7 and a 42.5mm f/1.7 (do not currently own). In addition to size, M4/3 has better highlight control and better face recognition. One issue in larger events is whether you will be taken seriously by performers, gatekeepers etc carrying two small consumer cameras when all the other photographers are using large professional gear. Sometimes you just need to look the part to get access.
A very good point on the being taken seriously, I'm fortunate that I'm working in small venues that I know well. If I wasn't it could well become a factor.
Follow Up! I am switching to M4/3. Hope I can get results as good as yours.
Loved the photos!
Many thanks.
Glad you like them!
I find Micro 4/3 to be more fun (and convenient) to use. And with RAW files and Photoshop AI technology any potential compromises in low light conditions can usually be fixed quickly.
I occasionally find myself in similar situations and I like that f1.7/8 gives me more DOF than a larger sensor would.
Yep, it's an often overlooked advantage
Personally, I'd add the 12mm f2 and 9mm f1.7, but that's just me. Brilliant video & photographs, thanks for sharing!
Many thanks, I've often thought about taking along something wider, but held off as in all but one venue the 45mm gets the most use. One I will end up taking at some point is my 7.5mm!
That was a wonderful video presentation. Thank you so much.
Do you realize that you have one of the coolest jobs ever? 😊
Great shots
Many thanks
Very nice images❤
Thank you! Cheers!
Interesting, I hadn't considered the reduced DoF in this context. I would very much like to see how you are working with these images in post. I'm not in my comfort zone with post work. Thanks for another great, real world video.
The editing video is in the works, so keep an eye out.
Great pics
Thank you!
Love the kit and photos ❤️. Quick question ive been wondering, does the panansonic lens work just as well on the olympus body? And vice versa? Thanks Gideon.
I've found no real-world difference between how the lenses work on the 'opposite' bodies at all. Many thanks for the kind words as well.
Great video, your photos are amazing and speak for themselves. Very inspiring for me to use my current gear more (and visits gigs more 😅). I have some questions to learn from you:
- nailing the exposure at high iso is indeed important but I struggle with it when it comes to bright lights and skin/people, do you spot meter on people?
- with a lot of mixed lights and dark venues, how do you set your whitebalance?
Btw its great to see such an experienced photographer like you use the 20mm and 45mm. These are the reason I switched to m43 when I was surprised with the results I got when borrowing a kit. I still love them dearly, they remind me of a contax g2 kit I would love to use one day with those excellent and small 40&90mm lenses.
Many thanks for the feedback, great to hear you like the images. In regard to exposure, as I know I will be sacrificing the blacks and shadows in post I tend to stick to the ESP metering, with M43 being mirrorless it also gives you a real-time view of roughly what the exposure will be like, so I use that with exposure compensation. In regard to White balance, I stick to auto and correct in post, too much is generally changing at a gig to manage it at the time. That said my E-M1 I rarely need to correct, as it does a great job, my GX-7 not quite as good, but even with that corrections are minor. Hope that helps :-)
It's the combination of the speed in terms of f-stop and the size that I love about them. when I shot gigs I make a point of being as unobtrusive as I can be, so the smaller kit helps a lot. Neither the musicians or audience want to see a massive camera lens being shoved in a singers, etc. face.
Great video. I love your photographs. 🙂 Where, roughly, are you located? Editing - yes please!
Paul 😎
Many thanks, I've located in Swindon, in the UK, and don't worry the editing video is in the works
Really impressed by your work. Recently picked up Olympus em10 mk 4. Looking forward to using it.
Ps fuck full frame. Looks a hindrance Justus lol
Many thanks, full frame has its place, but the weight and size is a pain a lot of the time.
The issue with the Olympus f1.8 primes is their relatively low light transmission. F1.8 on those lenses exposes darker at the same shutter speed compared with f1.8 on the equivalent f1.2 Pro lens. This doesn't sound important, but it can mean the difference of freezing motion in challenging light conditions while keeping ISO reasonable.
I'm fortunate that I've not yet found it to be an issue, but great info, many thanks
I see the 20mm 1.7, I hit like. Good shooting setup.
Many thanks, its a great lens
@@gideonliddiardphotography So versatile. I've done entire jobs with that alone!
Regarding the noise aspect that you touch on: if, as you say, you would not want the depth of field to be any shallower, then shooting on full frame would not give you any less noise. Your f1.7 on MFT would become f3.4 on FF thereby resulting in four times higher ISO.
Very true, but keep in mind that not all cameras (often regardless of sensor size) will give the same degree of noise at the same ISO or even differing ISOs.
If a light meter says F1.7 it is referring to light per unit area, not per full frame area. It does not care if it is FF, APSC, M43 or whatever, it is still f1.7, not f3.4. The world does not rotate around full frame.
@@LonStar3000 Yes I know, I'm not really saying that. What I meant was that if you actually want depth of field, then the better low light performance that you get with FF gets cancelled out because you have to stop down on FF to get the same depth of field. So if you wanted, say, "f8 of depth of field" (in FF terms) for a given scene, you would set your aperture to f4 on M43 thereby letting in more light and thus requiring a lower ISO. Example: A scene shot at f8 and 3200 ISO on FF would be f4 and 800 ISO on M43. This gives the same depth of field and about the same amount of noise.
In a totally different scenario, I would guess that being able to carry two bodies with a different lens on each to save changing would be an advantage if you're an area with dust. If you can avoid, or at least minimise lens changing, then there's less chance of getting dust in the camera.
While the main reason for me is speed, not having to take the lens off in an area that can be very dusty and dirty certainly is a good reason as well
Very interesting video!!! (And very good photos!!) You have a new subscriber!! 😉👍🏻
When you're at concerts, what type of light metering do you use? Spot, center or matrix?
And what about AF, how do you use it? Maybe you set it up differently on the Olympus than on the Panasonic
Thanks for the sub! For metering I stick with spot for gigs with a lot of stage lights, and for more evenly lit pubs and bars I go for matrix. One of the great things about mirrorless is you get a good idea through the viewfinder of what the exposures going to be like, so I then use exposure compensation and eyeball it. For AF, you are right I do use different approaches with the two bodies. The Lumix GX-7 I use the pinpoint AF mode, as the AF isn't as good on it, which does mean a degree of focus and recompose with it. The E-M1 I use single point AF tracking, which gets it right the majority of the time, but I do on occasion override both with MF if needed.
@@gideonliddiardphotography Thank you 👍🏻
Really enjoyed the video. When you are shooting in the bar, do you expose to the right?
To a degree yes, but a lot of the time with the lighting you just have to accept that you're going to have some blown-out highlights that you might never get back. I go into how I shoot gigs with M43 in this video czcams.com/video/ub--o-yU9pA/video.html
Great Video :)
Many thanks!
Really love the photos!!! Maybe a really dumb question? Are these photos shot with or without flash?
Many thanks, all shit without a flash, these days shooting a gig with flash would be a good way to get asked to leave. I've another video that runs through how I shoot gigs, take a look at that for more info.
@@gideonliddiardphotography thank you so much i will check it out
First class shots Gideon and a very interesting and helpful video! I’d be very interested to know if you specify a minimum shutter speed and if you use spot metering etc etc. Best wishes.
Many thanks. I normally run in aperture priority with lenses pretty much wide open and auto-ISO, watching for any drop below 1/60 of a second (unless I want blur in the final image). The image stabilisation on the Lumix and Olympus/OM bodies helps out at the lower speeds. As far as metering goes I will switch between matrix and spot depending on the venue and lighting (direct stage lights I go for spot and more open lighting in a pub/bar I go for matrix). However, with mirrorless bodies showing you what he final image will (roughly) look like, I then tend to 'eyeball' it through the viewfinder and adjust with exposure compensation as needed.
Thanks for the reply. Regarding shutter speed, I was thinking of movement on stage, rather than ibis to minimise camera shake. However your reply is helpful and makes complete sense.
I only have m43 gear so it's not as if I'm criticizing the format, but I disagree with what you say about the advantage over larger formats as far as aperture goes when compared to larger formats. True at any given aperture number, m43 will have greater depth of field, but since a larger format is less noisy, you can do the same thing with a smaller aperture and not have a the same noise issues by increasing the ISO. A bigger format really just allows for shallower DOF, when you want it. It allows for greater flexibility with DOF...
I've already gone into detail about this in another comment, and it's simply not true. With comparable sensor tech M43 maintains an advantage not only in regard to Signal to Noise, but also dynamic range, tonal range and colour sensitivity. The DX0 Mark analysis you can find here clearly show as much www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D750-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II___975_1106_1136
I'm my experience, even though they are technically interchangeable, using an Olympus lens on an Olympus body and a Lumix lens on a Lumix body gives your better autofocus - but it's just my experience.
And by better I mean faster
Interesting, I've personally found my E-M1 Mk II to be quick with both lens brands, particularly as light levels drop.
Good video and nice images.
I own the two cameras you use … you say that you use auto ISO but the GX7 doesn’t have that function … am I wrong ?
Thanks 👍
First make sure your not in full manual mode, as this locks out Auto-ISO on the GX-7 (and quite a few other cameras), then press the Q. Menu button (mapped to Fn.1 as standard and select ISO from the bottom ribbon menu. That gives you the ability to set Auto ISO, or select a specific ISO. You can also set the Auto ISO limit using Page 5 of the 'Rec' menu (the one with the camera as its icon), I have mine set to 12,800. From the same page you can also set the ISO increments (1 or 1/3 stop - mine is 1/3) and if you want to extend the ISO (yes for me). Or you can quickly set them by pressing Up on the D-pad, which gives you access to change all of them.
Thanks for the information ... that has helped me a lot.
Martin from Scotland 👍
@@martinlennon4673 my pleasure
Why didn't you include the shutter speeds?
How do you find the 40mm with not having AFC
What shutter speed do you usually use for pub gigs?
It's going to vary quite significantly depending on the available light, I talk more about the process, etc in this video czcams.com/video/ub--o-yU9pA/video.html
For me mFT works for nearly everything - people, nature, architecture, landscape - now more than ever, as sensor technology, processor technology and raw converters have become so much better. I just can't see a rationale reason to shoot full frame, for at least 95% of purposes.
quite agree, for most purposes sensor size has become a lot less of an issue these days.
Señor, con todo respeto, las razones que da, aplican a tecnología de hace 8 años, le presento esta bonita marca de cámaras fullframe pequeñas y lentes pequeños, llamada Sony, dese la oportunidad de usar la serie a7c.
I've tried them, for me they are too expensive and rather clinical. The laws of physics also dictate the lenses will never be as small.
Great! What SPEED do you set??
For ISO in most cases I leave it set to auto, and depending on the lighting conditions it will normally range between 640 as a lower level and 6,400 as an upper level. I have on occasions manually taken it as high as 12,800, but that is rarely needed.
@@gideonliddiardphotography I mean the shutter speed …. like 1/60 or 1/250 …
@@OutRAjiousI normally shoot in aperture priority (and adjust via exposure compensation), mostly wide open, as a result, shutter speeds tend to range from 1/60 to around 1/125.
@@gideonliddiardphotography wow pics are v sharp for those slower speeds !!
Argument of the wider depth of field is coming back again and again and I simply don't get it. It makes no sense. There is always a possibility to stop down on the aperture and get the desired depth of field. There is absolutely no advantage for mft in that regard. This system is relatively cheap and compact and these are the only "real" advantages over larger formats.
Oh dear. Stopping down will require either a slower shutter speed or a higher ISO, neither of which is desirable when shooting in the specific environments I'm looking at in this video. For shooting gigs it is an advantage for me, it's not the only one, but it most certainly is one.
@@gideonliddiardphotography Yes Mr. Obvious. Stopping down will require higher ISO which gonna get compensated by better noise performance of the larger formats so at the end the image quality will be exactly the same (give or take, sensor technology is a factor) . You are getting smaller and cheaper kit, that's it. DoF "advantage" is just a mantra
@@pawelbrzozowski3899 I shoot both formats (well actually far more than that), the larger sensor = better noise performance isn't as significant as FF groupies would like to believe (sensor age and technology are much more significant factors - making the size = better claim pretty much moot). I get it, you don't like M43, in which case the video in question isn't for you, that's fine.
@@gideonliddiardphotography Don't like it? I own it. I'm just aware of what is happening when I'm pressing the shutter button. If one will shoot mft at 1600 iso and f4, to get the same depth of field on a (for example) full frame camera f/8 and iso 6400 is needed. And yes, mft iso 1600 and FF iso 6400 will look the same. So where is this mythical depth of field advantage? Nowhere. You are just misleading people.
@pawelbrzozowski3899 How on earth can I be misleading people on a video titled "why I use M43 to shoot gigs", did you miss the I part of the title? I would also love to see the proof behind noise looking the same between M43 1600 and FF 6400, that's an assumption and generalisation rather than the factual statement it's been presented as (and also ignores that NR works more effectively the lower the ISO is as well). I've just looked at the DP test results comparing the Em-1 Mk2, the 5DMkIV, and D750 (broadly contemporary models), and the 1600/6400 test results (corrected for crop as well - which favours the FF models) shows more noise (particularly croma) present for the FF at 6400 compared to the M43 at 1600, at 6400/25600 the difference is even clearer (and DX0 Mark SNR18% charts back that up). At the same ISO FF 100% has a clear noise advantage, but with equivalence factored in that advantage (in this one and very specific situation) isn't present, rather the opposite is true.