I switched from FF to micro 4/3 back in 2017 with the GH5 and never looked back. It and my G9 are my landscape cameras too. With the type of hiking I do my back is very pleased. No need for huge backpacks anymore too. Even smaller tripods. Now my fully loaded pack weighs in around 25 lbs vs 55-60 lbs. That's camera gear, clothing, food, etc... My 35mm equivalent range is 18mm - 800mm.
I also use gh5 and g9 with some really small prime lenses mounted on, I can carry two cameras some filters and battery in small shoulder bag everywhere everyday
It is interesting. With the latest IBIS and dual IBIS, you really don't need a tripod anymore. I just use a hiking stick with a 1/4" thread at the top for a monopod.
Interesting perspective and explanation. As a hobbyist photographer that does some professional work such as family portraits, engagement pics, pet photography and music videos, I wanted to upgrade back in 2015 and chose Olympus MFT. I now have a great selection of lenses and one system that I use for both photography and videos! You can not beat the value of a micro4/3 system.
In 2019, I switched from Sony to Lumix cameras for video. The best decision ever. This year, 2022, I made the switch from Nikon to Olympus/Lumix for photography, and, so far, the best decision, too.
Well done man! I’ve been planning on making a video like this forever and you said everything I was going to say more or less. Reframing what people consider a negative of micro 4/3 as a positive is very important and you did a great job!
Thank you so much Rhett, I really appreciate it! I see a lot of people missed the point and thought it was about comparing picture quality on a GH5 to a Nikon D800, rather than MFT to full frame. Glad you appreciate it!
While I never shoot video, I still like M4/3 for photo. If a camera and lenses are too large/heavy, I would be less likely to carry it with me. Also, for travel, M4/3 ticks all the boxes for me.
Fanstastic analysis. Since most of the hybrid camera reviews are all about video your review is extremely relevant. I love my MFT G9 for photos. So my main interest here was in the MFT video capapbilities because all the reviews are focusing on video it seems with the new S5 series and G9ii. I am now convinced to get the G9ii when it comes down a bit in price and avoid the lens stable for FF breaking the bank and back.
Thanks great video to clarify the myth of FF is always better. I’m a 10+ years m43 user. This is the pattern I observe on my friend (casual photography): 1. Shoot with phone 2. Want to get a serious camera for kids or hobby 3. Want to buy the best one, the more expensive one. And as still young I don’t mind carrying heavy equipment around. 4. Get FF. Carry it every trip. 5. Getting old, tired,lose interest. The FF is too heavy. It’s used less frequently and collects dust. 6. Back to take photo with phone. Accept the fact that photography is not for him. During the whole process the lightweight m43 camera is never considered as a solution. In this case what we can see that “photography needs FF” mindset is actually killing many people’s interest in photography.
And 7. Photography wasn't for them from the beginning, they just though they will take better pictures with better gear and they were completely disappointed with results of super gear they bought, they paid 2 iphones for that mirror and lens set, so it must take better pictures itself!. I know that kind of people a lot. There is really little group of people that are really into LEARNING photography, not just expecting to get their photo game better with just better camera. There are awesome videos on youtube with "pro photographer amateur gear and amateur with pro gear", funny enough, if you have good eye and still can't take good photo with good gear, problem is you, not gear.
I don't shoot video all of my work is photography, I have used full frame, APSC and micro 4/3 cameras for many different types of photography, I have Panasonic and Olympus 4/3 Cameras and it was easier for me to use a 7-14 f2.8 and a Olympus OMD 1MKIII body for photos on the dance floor, the entire room or photographing establishing photos outside the venue than using a full frame equivalent setup for these photos, it was faster, lighter and easier to get in crowded rooms during an event, I also had a full frame and APSC camera to shoot every thing else during an event. The 4/3 system makes for a great travel camera setup as I often find myself in Resort pools, the surf along the beach and many other situations where having a large camera and lens would not be ideal, like the bow of a Catamaran sail boat full of people. I also like to carry a camera while we are walking around or going out to dinner while on vacation. It will be my choice for an upcoming trip to Aruba.
I completely agree with all of it. Thats why when getting rid of my camera gear and saving up for the S5ii I decided to keep the Lumix G9 M43. I just love that camera. I know I have conflicting lens line ups but in reality its the Panny 12-35 on the G9 for 99% of what I do and the 20-60 kit and 50-1.8 on the S5ii. I find I can do just about anything with that...photos, glamour shots, video work on either camera...Lumix Rocks - Your next video should be "Lumix cameras are the best...change my mind" LOL. Thanks and nice video very complete.
Well, technically the same applies to photography, however if you are a full frame person shooting everything at f1.8 you’ll need an f1 lens on MFT. Personally I’ve moved over to MFT completely. Even photography.
Started with MFT and then went to the full frame side. I like having both of them, my G9 with several leica lenses and my Sony full frame with several excellent lenses. I take a lot of pictures of military jets flying over the house & I can crop in farther with my Sony & not lose as much resolution. I just enjoy switching out the different systems and have fun with each one.
The equation for f-stop is: 1/f = focal length (mm)/diameter of the aperture (mm). The size of the sensor is not in the equation. The only impact is the smaller field of view. Crop factor is based on effective field of view and has nothing to do with f-stop. A 25mm lens at 1/f = 1.7 has the same aperture diameter on a M43, APS-C, or full frame. The depth of field is the same too. So a 25mm, f/1.7, cannot look like a 50 mm full frame at 1.7 if the image is taken at the same distance from the subject, because the focal length and depths of field are not the same. I must change the distance to the subject to get similar bokeh. Sensor size does not change optics.
I was thinking that too. Its the crux of his argument as well. Won't you still be unable to use f1.2 when filming video because of how hard it is to keep it all in focus?
A great explanation on why M4/3 will be relevant. I use the Olympus E-M1 Mk2 for landscapes and have no complaints. Also got the Panasonic G85. Another bang for buck camera. No urgency on my part as yet to jump onto the FF bandwagon.
I love the M43 system. I have an EM1 Mark III with Pro lenes. I sell my work on line and at galleries and have never had a buyer say "oh, I'm not buying your work because it wasn't shot with a FF camera".
I use both, FF and M43, and I do not make Video. I usually prefer FF for portraits, but I prefer M43 for landscape where Depth of field is important. Shooting with very stopped down diaphragms can degrade your image due to diffraction, but on M43 you can shot at F5.6 what you need a F11 to shoot on FF and still get 4 times more light in the picture (2 stops difference). The real problem with M43 is lack of improvement on sensor technology compared to APSC (mostly Fuji today) and FF.
Nice points and agree but some inconsistency... 1. Why just for video? Your arguments apply to still imagery as well. 2. The two stops f2.8 to f1.4 apply to ISO as well so 3200 to 800 not 3200 to 1000 as stated. 3. Stabilization. The physics term you are looking for is inertia...the tendency to continue moving in the same direction. Using a vehicle analogy...which vehicle would be easier to stop and change direction (which is what stabilization has to do with a sensor). A train, a bus or a car? Think you know which is the FF and which is the m4/3. For sake of argument we'll say the bus is aps-c. 🙂Cheers.
I am not a pro, but I have done a lot of portrait work for aspiring models and back in the day I assisted in a pro portrait studio. The reality is that in the medium format days pro's were shooting at f/5.6 to f/8 in the studio, and on assignment, 35mm pro's were shooting with constant aperture f/2.8 zoom lenses. That look is pretty similar to f/1.7 on m4/3 considering the 4:3 aspect ratio compared to the 3:2 aspect ration in 35mm. Anything much faster than that leads to potential problems as you have noted. So, for me, f/1.7 or f/1.8 is perfect on m4/3 and there are tons and tons of reasonably priced A/F lenses to choose from, and quite a few manual focus native m4/3 lenses to pick from as well. Also, with f/1.7 apertures, I have no need to shoot above ISO 1600 anyway. I don't do video.
Great video! Lots of good points about the depth of field, ISO and light gathering equivalence etc. There's also the huge issue of the cost for the latest equivalent full-frame body & lenses. Full frame has now caught up with the GH5 /MFT for video specs. So if you already own a full-frame system Inc lenses & are only upgrading the body & offsetting the cost by selling the old body. Then upgrading to the latest body makes sense. Otherwise, you will be looking at a substantial full-frame premium compared to an equivalent MFT setup... and the premium will be even bigger if you buy used M43 gear. Almost all the CZcams full-frame promoters fail to mention the cost of buying into a new FF system. Because the older, cheaper full-frame cameras don't have the video features that have made MFT so compelling. So you'd be looking at buying the latest model new or nearly new full-frame cameras. But then, those channels mostly exist to persuade viewers with deep pockets to keep buying expensive new equipment...
Very good video I've never had an issue shooting photos at night. I've tried many formats and keep coming back to M43. Must people who criticize it most likely have never tried it.
Thanks Steve, honestly I'm getting more and more impressed, the fact you can probably get a new upcoming GH6 with 3 Olympus f1.2 pro lenses for the price of a D850 and 1 lens is quite crazy!!
Thank you so much for doing this video! I LOVE the way you explain everything and I hate the constant argument against MFT about depth of field! I recently made a video titled "Full Frame is NOT Cinematic" and I talk about how older film formats like Super 16 and even iPhone 5 (Sean Baker's Tangerine) are ALL cinematic because Cinema isn't just the camera and lens. You're awesome, bud!
Nice video ! We need more fast zooms like the 10-25mm and 25-50mm 1.7 to make micro four third mount almost perfect ! That kind of flexibility is still missing, even if there are some great prime lenses on the market. Fingers crossed for the future 🤞
The only 2 lenses missing from the system is a 12-35 f1.4 and a 35-100 f1.4 (The perfect full frame lenses and you don’t need a shallow depth of field than 2.8 full frame equivalent) Olympus has the 1.2 primes which is enough.
@@RICH_Photography I totally agree, 2.8 DOF full frame equivalent is enough. Sometimes it's too shallow, I noticed that with Sigma primes ! And yes, in terms of prime lenses we have all we need 👌
Thanks for making this video but in my opinion, this video would be valid 2 years ago. Not so much now. 1. With you point on low light, you should compare a GH5S to a similar tier video camera from Sony like a7SII. Why making your point on videography but compared a video camera with a photo camera from Nikon announced back in 2012? 2. Your point on Bokeh is absolutely correct, but remember if you open the lens wide open to get more light on MFT, it would negative affect your sharpness and chromatic aberration, which are usually solved when lenses are stopped down. 3. Your point on stabilisation is still valid for small sensor but Lumix is no way near the best, Olympus/OM System is. And clearly you comparing a GH5S for low light then switch to GH5 for stabilisation to make your point sound better and more valid but really, two cameras against one? I think for professional it makes sense to use two or more systems or bodies but for us hobbyists, it wouldn't make sense. Please compare one camera to one camera. 4. Using AF doesn't make a veteran videographers newbie suddenly. Just the matter of having more options for your choice of art. Absolutely agree with you on bigger production not using AF, but a one man band or independent film makers who can't afford a crew would need that AF. 5. On size and weight, A Sony a7C with Sigma 28-70 f2.8 DG DN weight less than 1kg now. 980g to be precised, just 90g more when compared with GH5 + 12-35 f2.8. Full Frame and APS-C mirrorless cameras are so much lighter now that MFT strength's of compact size and weight back then is no more valid to use against them. P/S: I am not a fanboy of any systems or brands but clearly you are bias towards MFT, which somehow turned this video to be partially inaccurate and misleading.
Im not going to get in a debate...because NO WHERE in the video did I compare the low light capabilities of a GH5s to the Nikon, merely the settings of the aperture in ratio to depth of field and relevant ISO...even the lastest full frame Sony would STILL have a higher ISO value when trying to achieve the same depth of field. If you missed that point...then you missed the entire point of full frame vs MFT.
Auto focus is important for professionals in certain situations. In journalism when there is a large crowd of cameramen and jostling for space you cannot be fiddling with focus ring, A, S and ISO for every frame. You cannot also gamble on the outcome because there is no second chance. So this argument about pros-use-all-manual is a little misplaced. I use pin point which never fails. White balance is certainly a challenge and I don't see any solution to that.
Very nicely done, thank you. Maybe it's nit-picking but the 4/3 sensor is no more a 'crop sensor' than 36x24 mm is a crop sensor compared to medium format! I think that this is important because I suspect it is how the myth arose that a 4/3 sensor gathers less light than a 36x24 mm one, which is not true. APS-C is a crop sensor because a lens designed for a 36x24 mm frame throws much of the light gathered by the lens outside the area of the APS-C sensor, but 4/3 and MFT lenses are designed to fill the sensor with a circular image in the same way that a 'FF' lens fills the 36x24mm frame with a circular image; some light is lost around the edges in each case of course, but not much and proportionately less for the 4x3 sensor than for the 24x36 one.
MFT is also superior for photography (my primary focus). The inherent deeper DoF is advantageous most of the time and if you want shallow--failing to be able to achieve that using aperture/FL/distance to subject marks you as a novice (plus it's easy to blur in post and BLUR IS OVERRATED!). I get great bokeh whenever I want it. I can also confidently shoot at ISO 6,400 (DxO DeepPRIME noise reduction is a game-changer). The main advantage of MFT (and its raison d'être) is portability without compromise. Not only is there no compromise, but I prefer the shooting experience in every way over larger-sensor cameras. I could carry any camera gear I want and my "go-to" kit is a Lumix G9 with lenses ranging from a "FF" range of 16-800mm (also, there's nothing "full" about "full frame"--we called those "small format" back when film was king). My longest lens is a Leica 100-400 (200-800) and it's under 172mm (7") long by 83mm (3.2") wide and weighs under a kilo (2.2 lb.). That's much smaller/lighter than a Nikkor Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S (and my 70-200 f/2.8 eq lens is a fraction of that size/weight). As a bonus, it has a minimum focusing distance of 1.3m (4.3'). Imagine shooting at 800mm from that distance (.5x)! The point is, I can go anywhere with a tiny pack that weighs less than 5 kg (11 lb) and get images I couldn't get with a larger rig. IQ has never been an issue--I print large and they look great! To pay (and it'll be a lot more) for anything larger is to succumb to marketing hype, but hey, it's your money (and back)...
I totally agree , it's funny, I just printed A4 from Leica SL2 with SL 50mm 1.4 summilux and Olympus EM5M3 with Panny 12-35mm 2.8 . I can't tell any difference at all . Olympus has the best WB and colours out of all digital camera.
I would disagree. Full frame high MP is definitely far better stills image quality than 4/3rds, and always will be. That's why I mainly use my full frame Nikon bodies for stills (with occasional video) and mainly use my Panasonic 4/3rds bodies for video (with occasional stills).
You can always narrow your aperture or use a wide angle when you need DOF, but bokeh added in post looks like hot steaming garbage, anyone even if they may not be able to articulate it, can tell that it is off and feels fake.
@@eikoniseI shoot Nikon since the D700, which I still own. Currently have a D850 which I LOVE. Nikon glass is amazing, I have a vast collection including 70/200 2.8FL but my favourite portrait lens is still the old "cream machine" 85 1.4D. It has a unique character and gorgeous bokeh. Well I recently stepped in MFT, looking for a lighter system for those situations which require a lighter bag. Olympus PRO lenses are just phenomenal, I believe that if you give a try to the 45 1.2, for example, you may change your mind.
Excellent comparison. So one main question is up to which point more bokeh is beneficial. I mostly agree with you there, specially when talking about video. Except wide-angle. If you want a lot of bokeh at 12(24)mm a FF 1.4 lens comes in handy. But then again I feel that the shallow DOF hype is coming to an end.
Thank you so much, glad you enjoyed it. That's a very good point, you mostly find "lack of bokeh" in crop sensors on super wide lenses...but they have the benefit of wide lenses putting a lot in focus with a lower ISO. And on the point of bokeh overrated, I agree, I love good bokeh, but I'd rather have better light, than more bokeh.
Excellent video Rich! I've been contemplating switching from m 4/3 to full frame for video work. Which would mean buying a whole new set of lenses as well. I just don't want to invest so much into a hobby/freelance type of thing I'm doing. This definitely opened my eyes into an understanding that FF isn't all that when it comes to video. I'm looking forward to, and waiting for the release of the GH6. I really appreciate you putting this video together with all the sample footage. I'm also looking at the Laowa 7.5 lens now lol.
You're so welcome Kevin. We recently took photos with the D800 and the 24-70 2.8 lens for a Christmas light shoot, we did video too with the GH5s and had my GH5 there and took a few random photos, that amazing f1.4 aperture with the 2.8 depth of field have a better image than my DSLR, that's not even using the stabilized sensor for lower shutter speeds. Glad you enjoyed the video, the Laowa 7.5 is epic, and the GH6...well...already saving up for its release date!!
I have the Pen E-P1, OM-D EM5, both with the original kit-lenses, a E-PL5, the 17 and 45mm 1.8 lenses, the weather-sealed 12-50mm zoom, as well as the 4/3 50mm 2.0 Macro that came with the original Olympus adaptor. All purchased used, in "near-mint", with low shutter counts, for a bit over US$300. Learning photography on a OM-1, I also have a bunch of manual-focus OM-lenses. I will never sell any of them, in fact I'll be buying more M43 cameras as the price goes down. I would like a FF Nikon Df, but that's mostly because I have some of the classic Nikkors, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8 and 105mm 2.5 back from the film-days, and would like to use them without bothering about the crop-factor. But otherwise, they perform very well on M43, and on my trusty old CCD Nikon D200.. For those on a budget, or people wanting something better than a phone-camera without breaking the bank, M43 is highly recommended, you can get some really good deals if you have a bit of patience.
Good one and well done. Heavily dicussed topic, quite hot in times (ui, have a look at those M43 vs FF dicussions in the M43 dpreview forum. Threads get shut down regularly just because things are getting out of control there...). I love the fact you're using the sweetspots and gems of M43, like the Sigma 56/1.4. Great stuff. One other "gem" I found and enjoyed is the Tokina 11-16/2.8 (there is a 11-20/2.8 also, seems even nicer), in combination with a 0,71 reducer (again, even nicer with the 0,64x reducer, which I don't own and can comment about). This will end up as a 7,8 - 11,3/f2.0 zoom. Lots of light, lots of viewing angle, even ok autofocus (nothing to write home about, but it works). Regarding size I totally agree: the splendid Olympus 40-150/2.8 replaces both my old and trusty Canon EF L 70-200/2.8 and the Sigma 120-300/2.8 at about one fifth of the size and weight (and dare I say: one fifth of the costs also...). I wont even mention the sharpness comparison, the Oly resides in its own league. Btw, same applies to the Panasonic Leica 8-18/f2.8-4.0. Compared to the Canon 17-40 or the 16-35 (any version) its way better in center and corner sharpness, CA, LOCA or any other image distortion, wide open. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!
Totally agree that lenses are DOPE. easier to get better corner sharpness with less image circle (optics). I have a problem creating shallow enough DOF with wide lenses for mid portrait shots. with my speedboosted 50 mm zeiss all looks OK, but i need something WIDER. I hardly can create enough separation with the side lens (i dont mind heavy investing in pricey olympus 17 1.2 PRO or PL 14 1.2).
This is such a great video and you have really made me re-think some things. I do a lot of live/music concerts in low light. I use a combo of MTF and FF. I had been thinking about going all FF, but your point about the lower ISO with a bit more DOF makes more sense for some of my camera shots ! I've been using an S1H with a 28-70 @ F2.8 for my wide shot. I'm going to switch that to my GH6 with a 1.4 apeture so I can decrease the ISO, yet keep the DOF of 2.8 on FF (heck maybe I'll even go 3.2) . I just tried a comparison at home with this new way of thinking.. my mind is kinda blown away with how I look at MTF's now! I stil see uses for both, but really shows a FF is not always better! Thank you!!
Thanks Steve!!! I'm so glad you see it now. The lower ISO achieving the same depth of field is a game changer! Sadly there is a major drive around full frame and the reality is, for everyday paid jobs, FF at f1.4 is just not reliable, as you know on full frame you usually shoot f2.8 minimum, sometimes even f4 if you really need the shot. Glad I could help 🙏 enjoy that GH6 even more now!
You are 100% correct there! I know I made rookie mistakes of always shooting wide open when first getting into all of this. Always waning that " cinematic" look, but often just getting that "out of focus" shot instead :) Thanks for the reply!
Distances .. you missed the mark.. it is all about the distance of your subject ..full frame Will always be better for small room ,inside à car, inside à space ship,etc etc etc.. if you are outside then it dont matter.. outside =what ever you want..but inside = full frame .
@@MaitreyaNowyou will lose shalow dept of field And get distortion. There are limite with how wide you can go ..with a m4/3 its 2x crop .. so even a 24mm is now à 50. You cannot béat full frame with wider lenses..you just cant
Yeah better frame rates on MFT but full frame is catching up in 2024. Not going to sell my GH5s yet BUT the S5ii on the used market is pretty attractive now.
I mostly shoot stills on my MFT Olympus em5 MKI and em1 MKIII using modern and vintage lens. I love the format especially when using my vintage prime lens I have a whole range of Nikkor, OM. And Pentax 50 to 400mm. My Nikkor 180mm F2.8 and OM 200 F4 are amazing. 90% of the time MFT does what I need. I picked up a Cannon 6D for very cheap for the other 10%.
i am converted. in fact i am always a 4/3 and m4/3 shooter never find a reason why should i get a bigger sensor. those lovely tiny cameras and lenses are very friendly to my pocket and shoulder 😜
I just got a Panasonic gh5ii coming from a Gx8. What an upgrade geez. I tried a cannon full frame. It’s great, autofocus is a tad better but it isn’t godlike either. Especially since in video I use only manual, I can’t trust it any autofocus period. I’m team m/43 for video! For photography yeah full frame has a slight advantage and certain times when it’s a must but it isn’t often.
I shoot a lot of gigs an venturing into video. Would the still quality be okay in low light, dynamic situations? I often find myself wanting to shoot at smaller aperture to get wider depth if field but can't without raising ISO too much so M43 could solve his perhaps? I guess issue comes down to dynamic range if i want to lift the shadows a lot?
New Subscriber here. Wow! I'm glad you put so much work into this video. After weeks ( months really... ) of reading, comparing, watching reviews, etc... it's THIS video that finally gives me the confidence to go with the 4/3 system. The GH6 is being released in a couple weeks and I'll probably pull the trigger on one. Thanks for doing this video!
Hi i like your videos, thank you for producing them, just 3 things. 1.- The S5 is lighter than the gh5 and about the same size, so the difference in weight would just be in the lenses, but since you are using manual focus, you can adapt lightweight manual lenses like the leica m mount ones for example. 2.- Dynamic range. 3.- I wish the micro four thirds system would go back to the micro part of their philosophy, we should be able to have a choice between the bulkier, heavier, amazing gh5 and gh6 and something smaller, more portable and more recent (i own a gm5). Thank you again sir.
Thank you for going through this and explaining it in a way that is understandable. I have been hemming an hawing over my next set of gear. I have been a prosumer camcorder using most of my professional career and have been looking at M4/3 or Full Frame equipment, leaning to M4/3... this video has answered my questions and I will certainly be pursuing M4/3.
You're so welcome. Glad I could help you in your decision, with the launch of the GH6 next week...m43 is gonna be an obvious choice for a lot of creatives.
I often carry a M43 as a backup on photoshoots and in the field as a Plan B in case I have a glitch or a battery dies on my FF Canon, but now that AI imaging tools pretty much levels the playing field in terms of bokeh and low light performance, I find myself using my old Olympus as my primary camera.
The a7c and some compatible lenses are actually lighter than the GH5. Full frame isn't always heavier, but it will always have more bokeh at the same aperture and better low light at the same iso. I don't think it's always better, but I think some of the points you make here don't really make sense. For example, you say that in order to match the DOF, you can simply use a faster lens. But then you go onto equate the 12-35 f2.8 to the 24-70 f2.8, even though the ff lens would have way bigger bokeh. The equivalent would be a 12-35 f1.4, and that doesn't exist. If it did, I am sure it would be as big and heavy as the full frame lens.
THANK YOU! This is the biggest logical fallacy this video has. in order to have the “same bokeh/DOF” while being brighter according to this video’s logic, MFT equivalent of Full Frame’s 24-70 f2.8 lens has to be a 12-35 f1.4 lens, which doesn’t exist. So given that the sensor technology is the same, I still think Full Frame should be better at low light with, while also being much easier to get shallower depth of field at narrower apertures I’m leaning more towards Panasonic Lumix S5 now…
The problem with this is, you switched to the GH5s at the end but at least you are being honest but didn’t show how the GH5 would look in that last low light scene.
The only thing i need in FF is their AF, for my works in some corporate event, AF is really important to me, we dont want our cam suddenly hunting focus when doing live interview when in F2. But, 95% of my needs is already fulfilled in MFT. If only Lumix makes better AF in video :( currently using G9 and manual lens (because of my fear of AF in MFT)
Olympus AF (EM1-II and III) is on par with Canon and Sony. They are also the most rugged camera bodies in the industry, so they might be a great choice for corporate run-and-gun.
@@PascalTristanRedney if only olympus would upgrade their video features and put 10 bit in it. The menu system is also horrible if you are used to the gh5.. panasonic is better in everything expect af. Thats not enough for me to switch.
I think the general idea of crop factor is a bit misinformed. Yes, it changes field of view, but that’s it. If you’re using a 50 f/1.8 on either MFT or 35mm, you’ll have a “cropped” image from the MFT camera, but at the same distance from the subject with the same settings, both will have the same level of bokeh. Obviously, you’d need to move farther away from the subject or use a different focal length lens to get the same shot as on FF, but getting shorter lenses with fast apertures on MFT is cheaper and easier. So we shouldn’t try to compare the look of one lens on one system to a similar lens on another because the way you use that lens is dependent on the sensor size. Tl;dr any lens will look the same on MFT or FF under the same conditions, but you would want to use a different lens to get a comparable shot on either system.
Notice how the equivalent focal lengths across the two sensor sizes don't line up precisely. This is because equivalence is only applied to the horizontal plane, not the vertical (unless you talk about anamorphic lenses, but that is a whole other ballgame). The M43 sensor is taller due to it's aspect ratio, hence more space above and below the subject. Or it just might be that M43 uses less or no crop when shooting video, which most FF cameras still do (even the new ones).
I'm a happy G9 user, kept it stuck on an old 1.2 firmware to use the unlimited recording hack. As I understand, my G9 has better IBIS, better colors and slightly better AF than the GH5, that is why I chose G9 for video. And people can find a G9 at $700 on second hand markets, why isn't it obvious for everybody that it's still the best choice? Having to hack G9 for unlimited 4K60 recording is a major downer though. I hope GH6 isn't overpriced so I can consider it for an upgrade. One thing I really need as I'm a vlogger, is for PDAF I use AF constantly, I nearly never use MF and it's the only downside of all Panasonic cameras thus far. I wish the Sony FF had better IBIS and uncropped stabilized 4K60, and available for cheaper. Sony failed in all these areas with A7IV/A7Siii, so I am looking at GH6 as my only possible upgrade 😁 Please please Panasonic, don't dissapoint again with your crappy AF system and the GH6 will be the perfect camera!! Can they bring in the Dual ISO from GH5s in a fully stabilized GH6 and with a ton of new amazing feature upgrades somehow??
I love the G9, often thought about adding it to the mix. Regarding the GH6, I think it's gonna be full blown cinema styled like the no IBIS GH5s, a lot of filmmakers don't like IBIS and Panasonic knows this. Honestly I thought we were getting a GH6 and GH6s but after the launch of the GH5 MkII I'm not too sure what's gonna happen.
@@RICH_Photography I started with the GH5 hoping to jump into videos more. Which I did, plan worked out. Then I added a G9 for the photocentric work, even faster autofocus, bursts, high res mode. Love it. Then along came firmware 2.x (forgot, 2.0, 2.2, 2.3?) which considerably bumped the video capabilities of the G9 almost into the realms of the GH5: vlog support, VFS/slow motion, different codecs, etc. Since then I haven't touched my GH5 anymore. Of course there still pro-features only available for the GH5: higher bandwidth formats, vector scope, ss in angles, finetuning of shutter sync, etc.
@Rich Photography - can you please do a quick tut on how you do your indoor videos? Camera, light/temp, color grade and export. Your colors are really good.
I have to disagree with you on one point, with photography 35mm is not necessarily better there either. I own both Nikon and Olympus systems and to be honest I now only use my D850 when I have very specific needs, 90% of the time I shoot with Olympus. M4/3 is more than capable of producing clean A1 (poster sized) prints. Very few photographers ever print larger than that and if you are, you are probably using medium format anyway. Also with the new Panasonic organic sensor the low light and dynamic range performance may end up being in favour of M4/3.
I couldn't agree more! I think tons of camera youtubers are doing a disservice to beginner filmmakers by hyping up auto-focus. Filmmaking is not exclusively about talking head CZcams videos so not every camera needs incredible auto-focus. It's crippled tons of wannabe filmmakers and they never end up developing real skills. Then during event videography or pretty much anything, all the footage we get back from the full-frame A7siii's the camera is always hunting for focus when people walk in front of it. It's aggravating how over-reliant beginner filmmakers are on auto-focus, especially when for a lot less money, they can get a killer Micro-4/3rds camera with a wireless follow focus.
Well said!! And you're so right, I know a lot of Sony users that when I watch real paid jobs that videographers would do, there autofocus hunts so much purely because they've been told to rely on it when no real videographer wouldve ever used continuous AF in that situation.
I still don't know which system is better for me. I shoot only in RAW. I only shoot stills. Have no interest in video ever. I crop my images a bit and often print them at 48" by 32" and display them where they are viewed at close range, like in hallways and small rooms. And I prefer LARGE camera bodies because I find them more comfortable to use (like my big Canon 2 series is much preferable to my smaller Canon 5D Mark 4). Based on these criteria and preferences, which do you think would work best for me?
Hey Tom, to be honest if you really want a great camera down to raw photos that's more for photos, something like the new Nikon Z8 is perfect. The reality of cameras nowadays is that most professionals are forced to create video and photo. This where something like MFT and crop is way ahead with stabilisation and an array of amazing lenses available. If you wanting amazing high megapixel, good colour rendition for photos and highlight and lowlight control the Nikon Z8 would be probably the best right now.
@@RICH_Photography thank you! I have shot full frame Canons for years and been mostly satisfied with the output. But some folks keep writing articles and making videos about how MFT is so much better, so that has led me to question whether I should switch or not. But I think maybe these MFT proponents might be basing their "better than full frame" stance on things that don't matter to me, like size, weight, and video capabilities. So it's hard to sort through all of this and get an accurate assessment based only on my own usage. What you said helps. Thanks.
Thanks for the video.... very clear and finally some where someone explained it to me and actually calmed me down. I have a micro 4/3 Panasonic G9II and I kept wondering if I should switch to FF because of the bokeh and bad light. But I didn't want to lose compactness and uncropped 4K/50.
11 months ago I sold most of my Canon gear and invested in MFT. I couldn't be happier, especially with weight and size of ultra-wide's and super-teles. And I love that stabilisation means that I get sharp shots in very dark conditions that are just a mess on cameras that are supposed to be better in low light. MFT is a great format
I have EM10-IIIs with primes and D750 with primes and 2.8 zooms. M4x3 does great job as casual hiking tool, while FF allows to get more quality photos with better tones, dynamic range and clarity.
Really liked your explanation…love that size&weight is the Last Point at your Argumentation everybody else put this out first. Aperture bokeh and depth of Field Never thought about this like you told thank you! I Love my Gh5 🥰
You're welcome, glad you enjoyed it. Honestly I don't mind lugging around my massive DSLRs for amazing photos...would I like them on a gimbal for a solid 4 to 6 hours, definitely not lol I think a lot of people still don't understand the aperture point, and that the technology of M43 sensors will be as good as Full Frame sensors in the future, as of now, M43 low light isn't far off full frame, and that aperture gap will always be there.
Thank you for an excellent, detailed, objective, technical discussion with examples to back it up. And now…two years later…the latest offerings from OM Digital Solutions & Panasonic have further improved MFT on all these points. (OMDS/Oly user).
Why not? Don't let the fact that it's 7 or 8 years old fool you; the Lumix GX85 performs as nicely as cameras released this year. Yes, these most recent ones may have newer engines as faster AF, but if you know what you're doing the results are more or less the same. I use the Lumix G81 (our version of the G85) for video, and I need no other camera for the next 5 years. The New Gear Syndrome is what it is-a syndrome.
What is annoying in M43 unfortunately is the fact that the really compact bodies are either far inferior to GX series (eg. GX9 with no weather sealing) or they are discontinued (again, GX9 and no successor of it). G or GH series bodies are great, but they are comparable in size and weight to Fujis X-H1/2 or Nikons Z6/7.
To be honest, most companies are going to start going bigger. Sony camera shave gotten too small. The G9 for me is way too tiny. Great with a battery grip on. Fortunately the GH6 feels a little bigger and better. As someone that shot full frame for years, a bulkier camera definitely helps with holding it and being more stable. But then again, for travel purposes I can understand your point.
@@RICH_Photography which is a bummer. Currently if you want a small body you have to go entry level with all its downsides. I wish we had iPhone mini like LUMIX body - same specs as flagship but in small form factor. For improving gripping a grip add on is sufficient. But I guess it will stay in dreams or wish lists…
Having shot every format in my 40 years as a photographer in New York, I’ve shot 35, medium format, large format 4 x 5, even large format 11 x 14. And I’ll tell you that most cameras can be made to deliver a similar image. The question is what’s more important? Do you want a larger format for higher quality? Or a smaller camera for ease of use? Digital sensors have thrown a monkey wrench into this because new small sensors, like the GH6 has, might actually be delivering better images than larger sensors of just a few years ago.
Im really glad you enjoyed it and appreciate the valid points. I have to say, I cannot wait for the GH6, I think its going to be epic for video, and it seems Olympus is going to drop a banger of a photo camera the day after the GH6 is announced! MFT is going to be epic this year!
Have 2 G9s love them to death. Got an S5 and love that to death. Just got the GH6 and....I think I got used to FF especially for stills. Indo more stills than video. I'm going to keep my G9s as long as I can but between the GH6 and the S5 for stills I may just get a 2nd S5.
Great points. There's a couple of things you didn't consider though. At the same megapixels account, the FF will be cleaner. When you do want that bokeh, the FF will give much more because there's no lens faster than 0.85 (kipon) that i can recall. I bet you don't focus manually your lens when you're shooting a photo job, and when you got a good AF (m43 systems are just starting to provide that) you use it, and can take more advantage of that very low DOP if you want to. Things would be different with a new lens with good AF and a speedbooster (as the g9 mark ii).
To be fair, the megapixel count won’t always make a difference, depending on the technology in the sensor. But it’s a good rule of thumb. On that note, it’s not as if shooting above ISO6400 is normal, if you shooting above ISO6400 you should be adding more light. If you are looking for maximum bokeh, then full frame is the way to go, but I photographed my entire career with 2.8 lenses mostly photographed at 3.2 and 3.5 and that bokeh was more than enough. I think the hunt for bokeh is over rated because it’s a way to take the attention off bad light. Finally, yes, I shoot 100% full manual on every single job, I shoot cine lenses on every job. From music videos, weddings, events, corporate videos, Broll, everything. If you’re shooting photos, then sure, you use autofocus as I always have, but that’s also single point if you’re shooting events etc. Continuous autofocus is only used for walking shots or sports.
@@RICH_Photographyi got a canon eos R and a BMPCC 4k, i used to shoot apsc and when i moved to FF. I was amazed about the low light capabilities compared to my old equipment. I love my BM but it suffers in low light, I use a speedbooster. So I'm not biased towards any system but there are situations where the FF is needed, for instance shooting weddings when you find yourself in a tight and not very pretty location. Blurring those backgrounds helps. And the AF in these situations is very handy, even in video. The same applies to shooting concerts in low light. Of course there are noisy FF cameras but most of them beat their m43 counterparts in the same conditions. Unless again, if you use a speedbooster. Panasonic m43 are just starting to catch up in the AF department. I liked your analysis. Cheers
We've always filmed on s35, so m43 was a no-brainer when it came along. I can't see any reason to switch and have been campaigning to get our a cam to be m43 like all of our b cams.
Been on the fence for a second camera. Either a second Sony full frame or some sort of crop sensor camera. Micro four has me interested for the variety of lenses on top of a lot of nice features for the price. This does show the actual real benefits to it. I'm honestly surprised at the iso to noise. It looks cleaner at pretty much any iso. Have a apsc cam that seems like it has more noise no matter what compared to my full frame. The apsc would be getting replaced as the second btw
You 100% right with MFT. The lens availability is amazing. The ability to shoot at f1.4 and still achieve the amazing low light capabilities of f1.4 but the depth of 2.8 is a huge benefit. Most people see it as a negative until their brain hits a switch. In real world scenarios shooting f1.4 full frame is totally unrealistic if you looking for sharp quality content. Truly think that once you go MFT you'll see an amazing hybrid camera and might start leaving your full frame bodies behind.
Dude you're in my head 😂 I love m43 for video + having fast lenses on me in situations where giant full frame cameras aren't welcome. I have a Nikon D810 + several lenses when I want full frame for portraits etc. Best of both worlds.
@@RICH_Photography Just rewatched -- re: autofocus, it's useful in some non-pro, more run n gun documentary style situations. But the Olympus bodies with phase detect (OM-1, E-M1 II/III/X, E-M5 III) have video C-AF with face tracking that's functionally just as good as Canon Sony etc. The E-M1 II & E-M5 III don't have auto ISO while rolling in manual video mode, it meters untill you start rolling then locks the ISO when you press record. So either way, m43 got it covered. GH series are better cine cameras, Olympus have the AF + even better IBIS. It would be nice if one body combined these but hey there's choices! 🤷♂️
Well nearly jumped on a cannon eos r from my g9 I watched another video I understand crop it multiply ❌ 2 for my 1000 pounds worth of lenses till I read when you crop a full frame picture you lose loads of pixels so sticking with micro four thirds
Too true, I do believe gear makes a major difference, it makes life easier too. But whether you have a GH5 or the GH5 mkii, your content quality remains the same.
Pro video, for example, “the movies,” have always been filmed on super 35. This like an Apsc crop. Full frame for video is terrible. Among the other things you mentioned, the rolling shutter is terrible on a full frame. The sensor is too big to scan it quick enough. This is a big problem for anything with action. A full frame is just a data beast.
I’ve been having this argument for the last few years, coming from a GH5s I now have a full frame S5 but only because (A)the deal was so good I almost got the purchase price back on the trade in nearly 3 years later and (B)because I bought a set of vintage contax lenses and therefore I wasn’t really saving on the lens weight and couldn’t get a super wide to match. I had the laowa 7.5 as well, it was smaller than a lens cap for one of my contax lenses😂now I carry around a huge sigma 14-24 2.8 that takes up most of my camera bag. It was almost like I made this video as all your views were like mine:) subbed
not to say im unhappy with gh5s but how do you feel your upgrade? Same slow zeiss set 25 35 50 85) Lens i reaally need for good all around work is PL 10-25 (very pricey and heavy as FF setup). So no advantages of m4/3 as for solo player...
From my experience full frame f2.8 is the sweet spot for video. It give good separation and not being too shallow dof. F4 might be ok, but I find I am wishing I had more separation whenever I use f4 lens especially bellow 50mm. That is why a 24-70/28-70 f2.8 is 90% on my camera. This is one reason I feel m43 is short. To get f2.8 dof on m43, I need f1.4 lens. So basically I need a 12-35 f1.4 lens on m43. There is only the panasonic 10-25 f1.7 that is the closest. But look at sony there are plenty options at this range with much affordable price. You have way more lens choice from full frame than m43 lens. m43 is fine, but they need make fast lens not those f2.8 f4 zoom lens. Also if you use full frame for photo. then better just invest in full frame for both photo and video. One camera brand for photo and another camera brand for video is not ideal. So my opinion is for the ultimate hybird shooter, full frame is still the way to go. Granted you will spend more money on it.
Oh, cheaper F2.8 FF lens than m43! But after I got my hands on the sigma 24-70F2.8 with Lumix S5. When I opened the images on my computer, my feeling is W.T.F.! The images look out of focus across the entire frame! The colors are so flat and de-saturated. That's when I realized how sharp my 10-25 is and the "cheaper" FF 2.8 glass vs "expensive" 10-25F1.7 theory is simply wrong. 10-25 should be compared to $2200-$2400 proper 24-70F2.8 glass, and consider the $1500 price, besides it replaces the 16-35+24-70 combo, even though now I have enough budget, I am still staying in M43.
i feel you but 10--25 is awesome... Sadly, i can`t afford it for every day personal use( What i really need is wide angle lens for mid people shots that will create enough separation.
100% agree. MFT or crop sensor. You will always run into a wall with it. But the most important thing to note is that the smaller the sensor, the more difficult the manufacturing process is to produce the camera and lenses. Which also means the price goes up for the components.
With the same picture at the same distance cannot get away from all the extra sensor area compared to a smaller sensor. I always see the difference myself in less detail.🙃
i am currently getting back into photography and i initially wanted to go with sony because a7 type bodies can bereally cheap used too and i allways wanted a ff because i never had one. but the more i think about it, the more it becomes a ''i want it... but i dont actually need it prob. 95% of the time'' on the other hand there are so many advantages to m43 that i actually really want. from the ibis, to the weather sealing, the smaller lenses, the sheer amount of lenses you can use and adapt and on top i dont really used that much ultra wide angles anyways so something like a 17mm oly would be more than fine. on the top end however it gives me loads and loads of flexibility going forward, even going as far and making certain types of photography possible i would never thought about. like wildlife or macro photography, where the 2x crop becomes your advantage even. want to do wildlife? but you cant afford this massive 600mm ff lens? well... a 300mm m43 lens is way smaller and actually affordable and it gives you the same 600mm range. and on top i just love how big and flexible the ecosystem is too since everything is interchangable, i can get a small pocket camera, a lumix one, something for videos, a big bulky body for studio, olympus bodys for ibis... and all of them share the exact same lens mount wich makes every lens i purchase basically double in value because all of my cameras can use it. on top: yes there are cheap lenses for other systems too, but if you want to go for the higher end glass, its damn near ridiculous in price. with m43, its different. PRO lenses like the zuiko 14-40 2.8 are actually really affordable. you can get those used for like 350 ish. same with the awesome 60mm 2.8 macro lens, you can get this guy for 250-300 used. for like 1000$ you can pretty much build yourself a fully working lens lineup covering almost everything you ll ever need. with FF you might get 1 good lens. 2 and you re already spending more than 1000$ thinking of it, m43 might even the most flexible plattform there is period. and there are so many benefits like size, weather sealing and others and almost no downsides that would affect me too much. a little bit more noise on smaller sensor... well for those occasional times when you really need to crank it up... LR has ai denoise and its great.
I'm constantly back and forth between upgrading to a GH6, BMPCC 4K or 6K, or going FF Sony or Canon, but I think you made my decision a bit easier. From what I can gather from this video, FF is fantastic for stills since you want to only have your subject in focus and 1.4 would blur the background completely. M4/3 is perfect for video since you can use a fast lens for low light and not completely blow out the scene. FF isn't fantastic for video and M4/3 isn't fantastic for stills. I primarily do video, so I'll stick to M4/3, APSC, or Super 35, and get a FF if I ever have a need for high quality stills. I'm still learning every day, so if anyone reads this and can give me a different opinion I'm all ears. For now, thank you for making this video, clear and to the point. Take care!
Since you asked for feedback, you have far too many absolutes that you’re juggling. Most of the absolutes you mention are only marginally true, under certain circumstances. For example the Canon 5D is the camera that started the video DSLR craze. And it’s full frame! And it’s been used in many professional productions and TV, so clearly full frame is fine for video as well. Think of it this way. Someone will tell you that a Jeep is best used for off-road. Yet we see Jeeps driving down every Road and Highway across the country. Same with cameras. They need not be pigeonholed.
I switched from FF to micro 4/3 back in 2017 with the GH5 and never looked back. It and my G9 are my landscape cameras too. With the type of hiking I do my back is very pleased. No need for huge backpacks anymore too. Even smaller tripods. Now my fully loaded pack weighs in around 25 lbs vs 55-60 lbs. That's camera gear, clothing, food, etc... My 35mm equivalent range is 18mm - 800mm.
I also use gh5 and g9 with some really small prime lenses mounted on, I can carry two cameras some filters and battery in small shoulder bag everywhere everyday
what lens u use for 800mm ?
@@swiftdetecting The Leica 100-400. The reach is insane. The quality of the images and video too.
It is interesting. With the latest IBIS and dual IBIS, you really don't need a tripod anymore. I just use a hiking stick with a 1/4" thread at the top for a monopod.
Interesting perspective and explanation. As a hobbyist photographer that does some professional work such as family portraits, engagement pics, pet photography and music videos, I wanted to upgrade back in 2015 and chose Olympus MFT. I now have a great selection of lenses and one system that I use for both photography and videos! You can not beat the value of a micro4/3 system.
In 2019, I switched from Sony to Lumix cameras for video. The best decision ever. This year, 2022, I made the switch from Nikon to Olympus/Lumix for photography, and, so far, the best decision, too.
Do you use Olympus professionally?
@@yourvitamin9474 Yes.
Well done man! I’ve been planning on making a video like this forever and you said everything I was going to say more or less. Reframing what people consider a negative of micro 4/3 as a positive is very important and you did a great job!
Thank you so much Rhett, I really appreciate it! I see a lot of people missed the point and thought it was about comparing picture quality on a GH5 to a Nikon D800, rather than MFT to full frame.
Glad you appreciate it!
While I never shoot video, I still like M4/3 for photo. If a camera and lenses are too large/heavy, I would be less likely to carry it with me. Also, for travel, M4/3 ticks all the boxes for me.
Fanstastic analysis. Since most of the hybrid camera reviews are all about video your review is extremely relevant. I love my MFT G9 for photos. So my main interest here was in the MFT video capapbilities because all the reviews are focusing on video it seems with the new S5 series and G9ii. I am now convinced to get the G9ii when it comes down a bit in price and avoid the lens stable for FF breaking the bank and back.
Thank you, the G9ii is definitely on my list and I’ll put my GH6 in my handheld video rig 👌
exactly what I thought as well :) thank you for confirming
Thanks great video to clarify the myth of FF is always better. I’m a 10+ years m43 user.
This is the pattern I observe on my friend (casual photography):
1. Shoot with phone
2. Want to get a serious camera for kids or hobby
3. Want to buy the best one, the more expensive one. And as still young I don’t mind carrying heavy equipment around.
4. Get FF. Carry it every trip.
5. Getting old, tired,lose interest. The FF is too heavy. It’s used less frequently and collects dust.
6. Back to take photo with phone. Accept the fact that photography is not for him.
During the whole process the lightweight m43 camera is never considered as a solution.
In this case what we can see that “photography needs FF” mindset is actually killing many people’s interest in photography.
And 7. Photography wasn't for them from the beginning, they just though they will take better pictures with better gear and they were completely disappointed with results of super gear they bought, they paid 2 iphones for that mirror and lens set, so it must take better pictures itself!.
I know that kind of people a lot. There is really little group of people that are really into LEARNING photography, not just expecting to get their photo game better with just better camera. There are awesome videos on youtube with "pro photographer amateur gear and amateur with pro gear", funny enough, if you have good eye and still can't take good photo with good gear, problem is you, not gear.
@@ArturOleszczuk1991 yes thanks for pointing out the equipment myth
I don't shoot video all of my work is photography, I have used full frame, APSC and micro 4/3 cameras for many different types of photography, I have Panasonic and Olympus 4/3 Cameras and it was easier for me to use a 7-14 f2.8 and a Olympus OMD 1MKIII body for photos on the dance floor, the entire room or photographing establishing photos outside the venue than using a full frame equivalent setup for these photos, it was faster, lighter and easier to get in crowded rooms during an event, I also had a full frame and APSC camera to shoot every thing else during an event. The 4/3 system makes for a great travel camera setup as I often find myself in Resort pools, the surf along the beach and many other situations where having a large camera and lens would not be ideal, like the bow of a Catamaran sail boat full of people. I also like to carry a camera while we are walking around or going out to dinner while on vacation. It will be my choice for an upcoming trip to Aruba.
I completely agree with all of it. Thats why when getting rid of my camera gear and saving up for the S5ii I decided to keep the Lumix G9 M43. I just love that camera. I know I have conflicting lens line ups but in reality its the Panny 12-35 on the G9 for 99% of what I do and the 20-60 kit and 50-1.8 on the S5ii. I find I can do just about anything with that...photos, glamour shots, video work on either camera...Lumix Rocks - Your next video should be "Lumix cameras are the best...change my mind" LOL. Thanks and nice video very complete.
A good video and many good points. I wish you had placed the words, "for video" in the title. All the best.
Well, technically the same applies to photography, however if you are a full frame person shooting everything at f1.8 you’ll need an f1 lens on MFT.
Personally I’ve moved over to MFT completely. Even photography.
Started with MFT and then went to the full frame side. I like having both of them, my G9 with several leica lenses and my Sony full frame with several excellent lenses. I take a lot of pictures of military jets flying over the house & I can crop in farther with my Sony & not lose as much resolution. I just enjoy switching out the different systems and have fun with each one.
The equation for f-stop is: 1/f = focal length (mm)/diameter of the aperture (mm). The size of the sensor is not in the equation. The only impact is the smaller field of view. Crop factor is based on effective field of view and has nothing to do with f-stop. A 25mm lens at 1/f = 1.7 has the same aperture diameter on a M43, APS-C, or full frame. The depth of field is the same too. So a 25mm, f/1.7, cannot look like a 50 mm full frame at 1.7 if the image is taken at the same distance from the subject, because the focal length and depths of field are not the same. I must change the distance to the subject to get similar bokeh. Sensor size does not change optics.
Excellent comment.
I thought he meant that the 25mm f1,7 on mft is going to look like 50mm f2,4 full frame?
I was thinking that too. Its the crux of his argument as well. Won't you still be unable to use f1.2 when filming video because of how hard it is to keep it all in focus?
This is an extremely well-done comparison. One of the few genuinely valuable comparisons between the two formats. Subbed
A great explanation on why M4/3 will be relevant. I use the Olympus E-M1 Mk2 for landscapes and have no complaints. Also got the Panasonic G85. Another bang for buck camera. No urgency on my part as yet to jump onto the FF bandwagon.
I love the M43 system. I have an EM1 Mark III with Pro lenes. I sell my work on line and at galleries and have never had a buyer say "oh, I'm not buying your work because it wasn't shot with a FF camera".
I use both, FF and M43, and I do not make Video.
I usually prefer FF for portraits, but I prefer M43 for landscape where Depth of field is important. Shooting with very stopped down diaphragms can degrade your image due to diffraction, but on M43 you can shot at F5.6 what you need a F11 to shoot on FF and still get 4 times more light in the picture (2 stops difference).
The real problem with M43 is lack of improvement on sensor technology compared to APSC (mostly Fuji today) and FF.
Nice points and agree but some inconsistency...
1. Why just for video? Your arguments apply to still imagery as well.
2. The two stops f2.8 to f1.4 apply to ISO as well so 3200 to 800 not 3200 to 1000 as stated.
3. Stabilization. The physics term you are looking for is inertia...the tendency to continue moving in the same direction. Using a vehicle analogy...which vehicle would be easier to stop and change direction (which is what stabilization has to do with a sensor). A train, a bus or a car? Think you know which is the FF and which is the m4/3. For sake of argument we'll say the bus is aps-c. 🙂Cheers.
I am not a pro, but I have done a lot of portrait work for aspiring models and back in the day I assisted in a pro portrait studio. The reality is that in the medium format days pro's were shooting at f/5.6 to f/8 in the studio, and on assignment, 35mm pro's were shooting with constant aperture f/2.8 zoom lenses. That look is pretty similar to f/1.7 on m4/3 considering the 4:3 aspect ratio compared to the 3:2 aspect ration in 35mm. Anything much faster than that leads to potential problems as you have noted. So, for me, f/1.7 or f/1.8 is perfect on m4/3 and there are tons and tons of reasonably priced A/F lenses to choose from, and quite a few manual focus native m4/3 lenses to pick from as well. Also, with f/1.7 apertures, I have no need to shoot above ISO 1600 anyway. I don't do video.
I shoot almost exclusively stills, and I switched back to 4/3 recently, selling my Canon RF mount kit and getting a used G9.
Great video! Lots of good points about the depth of field, ISO and light gathering equivalence etc. There's also the huge issue of the cost for the latest equivalent full-frame body & lenses.
Full frame has now caught up with the GH5 /MFT for video specs. So if you already own a full-frame system Inc lenses & are only upgrading the body & offsetting the cost by selling the old body. Then upgrading to the latest body makes sense.
Otherwise, you will be looking at a substantial full-frame premium compared to an equivalent MFT setup... and the premium will be even bigger if you buy used M43 gear.
Almost all the CZcams full-frame promoters fail to mention the cost of buying into a new FF system.
Because the older, cheaper full-frame cameras don't have the video features that have made MFT so compelling. So you'd be looking at buying the latest model new or nearly new full-frame cameras.
But then, those channels mostly exist to persuade viewers with deep pockets to keep buying expensive new equipment...
Very good video I've never had an issue shooting photos at night. I've tried many formats and keep coming back to M43. Must people who criticize it most likely have never tried it.
Thanks Steve, honestly I'm getting more and more impressed, the fact you can probably get a new upcoming GH6 with 3 Olympus f1.2 pro lenses for the price of a D850 and 1 lens is quite crazy!!
Thank you so much for doing this video! I LOVE the way you explain everything and I hate the constant argument against MFT about depth of field! I recently made a video titled "Full Frame is NOT Cinematic" and I talk about how older film formats like Super 16 and even iPhone 5 (Sean Baker's Tangerine) are ALL cinematic because Cinema isn't just the camera and lens. You're awesome, bud!
The MFT system is the smartest stuff I've ever seen and I love it! You bring the right reasons against Who tell the MFT is dead. W MFT!
you explain the concepts, ideas and differences extremely well
Nice video ! We need more fast zooms like the 10-25mm and 25-50mm 1.7 to make micro four third mount almost perfect ! That kind of flexibility is still missing, even if there are some great prime lenses on the market. Fingers crossed for the future 🤞
The only 2 lenses missing from the system is a 12-35 f1.4 and a 35-100 f1.4
(The perfect full frame lenses and you don’t need a shallow depth of field than 2.8 full frame equivalent)
Olympus has the 1.2 primes which is enough.
@@RICH_Photography I totally agree, 2.8 DOF full frame equivalent is enough. Sometimes it's too shallow, I noticed that with Sigma primes ! And yes, in terms of prime lenses we have all we need 👌
Nice and interesting video: we use an MFT Zcam E2 with Sirui Anamorphic lens, and the videos are great
Thank you, really glad you enjoyed it. I love the Z Cams. Ultimate gimbal body.
Thanks for making this video but in my opinion, this video would be valid 2 years ago. Not so much now.
1. With you point on low light, you should compare a GH5S to a similar tier video camera from Sony like a7SII. Why making your point on videography but compared a video camera with a photo camera from Nikon announced back in 2012?
2. Your point on Bokeh is absolutely correct, but remember if you open the lens wide open to get more light on MFT, it would negative affect your sharpness and chromatic aberration, which are usually solved when lenses are stopped down.
3. Your point on stabilisation is still valid for small sensor but Lumix is no way near the best, Olympus/OM System is. And clearly you comparing a GH5S for low light then switch to GH5 for stabilisation to make your point sound better and more valid but really, two cameras against one? I think for professional it makes sense to use two or more systems or bodies but for us hobbyists, it wouldn't make sense. Please compare one camera to one camera.
4. Using AF doesn't make a veteran videographers newbie suddenly. Just the matter of having more options for your choice of art. Absolutely agree with you on bigger production not using AF, but a one man band or independent film makers who can't afford a crew would need that AF.
5. On size and weight, A Sony a7C with Sigma 28-70 f2.8 DG DN weight less than 1kg now. 980g to be precised, just 90g more when compared with GH5 + 12-35 f2.8. Full Frame and APS-C mirrorless cameras are so much lighter now that MFT strength's of compact size and weight back then is no more valid to use against them.
P/S: I am not a fanboy of any systems or brands but clearly you are bias towards MFT, which somehow turned this video to be partially inaccurate and misleading.
Im not going to get in a debate...because NO WHERE in the video did I compare the low light capabilities of a GH5s to the Nikon, merely the settings of the aperture in ratio to depth of field and relevant ISO...even the lastest full frame Sony would STILL have a higher ISO value when trying to achieve the same depth of field.
If you missed that point...then you missed the entire point of full frame vs MFT.
Auto focus is important for professionals in certain situations. In journalism when there is a large crowd of cameramen and jostling for space you cannot be fiddling with focus ring, A, S and ISO for every frame. You cannot also gamble on the outcome because there is no second chance. So this argument about pros-use-all-manual is a little misplaced. I use pin point which never fails. White balance is certainly a challenge and I don't see any solution to that.
Very nicely done, thank you.
Maybe it's nit-picking but the 4/3 sensor is no more a 'crop sensor' than 36x24 mm is a crop sensor compared to medium format! I think that this is important because I suspect it is how the myth arose that a 4/3 sensor gathers less light than a 36x24 mm one, which is not true. APS-C is a crop sensor because a lens designed for a 36x24 mm frame throws much of the light gathered by the lens outside the area of the APS-C sensor, but 4/3 and MFT lenses are designed to fill the sensor with a circular image in the same way that a 'FF' lens fills the 36x24mm frame with a circular image; some light is lost around the edges in each case of course, but not much and proportionately less for the 4x3 sensor than for the 24x36 one.
MFT is also superior for photography (my primary focus). The inherent deeper DoF is advantageous most of the time and if you want shallow--failing to be able to achieve that using aperture/FL/distance to subject marks you as a novice (plus it's easy to blur in post and BLUR IS OVERRATED!). I get great bokeh whenever I want it. I can also confidently shoot at ISO 6,400 (DxO DeepPRIME noise reduction is a game-changer). The main advantage of MFT (and its raison d'être) is portability without compromise. Not only is there no compromise, but I prefer the shooting experience in every way over larger-sensor cameras. I could carry any camera gear I want and my "go-to" kit is a Lumix G9 with lenses ranging from a "FF" range of 16-800mm (also, there's nothing "full" about "full frame"--we called those "small format" back when film was king). My longest lens is a Leica 100-400 (200-800) and it's under 172mm (7") long by 83mm (3.2") wide and weighs under a kilo (2.2 lb.). That's much smaller/lighter than a Nikkor Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S (and my 70-200 f/2.8 eq lens is a fraction of that size/weight). As a bonus, it has a minimum focusing distance of 1.3m (4.3'). Imagine shooting at 800mm from that distance (.5x)! The point is, I can go anywhere with a tiny pack that weighs less than 5 kg (11 lb) and get images I couldn't get with a larger rig. IQ has never been an issue--I print large and they look great! To pay (and it'll be a lot more) for anything larger is to succumb to marketing hype, but hey, it's your money (and back)...
I totally agree , it's funny, I just printed A4 from Leica SL2 with SL 50mm 1.4 summilux and Olympus EM5M3 with Panny 12-35mm 2.8 . I can't tell any difference at all . Olympus has the best WB and colours out of all digital camera.
Would denoise ai work as good as that other aoftware
I would disagree. Full frame high MP is definitely far better stills image quality than 4/3rds, and always will be.
That's why I mainly use my full frame Nikon bodies for stills (with occasional video) and mainly use my Panasonic 4/3rds bodies for video (with occasional stills).
You can always narrow your aperture or use a wide angle when you need DOF, but bokeh added in post looks like hot steaming garbage, anyone even if they may not be able to articulate it, can tell that it is off and feels fake.
@@eikoniseI shoot Nikon since the D700, which I still own. Currently have a D850 which I LOVE. Nikon glass is amazing, I have a vast collection including 70/200 2.8FL but my favourite portrait lens is still the old "cream machine" 85 1.4D. It has a unique character and gorgeous bokeh. Well I recently stepped in MFT, looking for a lighter system for those situations which require a lighter bag. Olympus PRO lenses are just phenomenal, I believe that if you give a try to the 45 1.2, for example, you may change your mind.
Excellent comparison. So one main question is up to which point more bokeh is beneficial. I mostly agree with you there, specially when talking about video. Except wide-angle. If you want a lot of bokeh at 12(24)mm a FF 1.4 lens comes in handy. But then again I feel that the shallow DOF hype is coming to an end.
Thank you so much, glad you enjoyed it.
That's a very good point, you mostly find "lack of bokeh" in crop sensors on super wide lenses...but they have the benefit of wide lenses putting a lot in focus with a lower ISO.
And on the point of bokeh overrated, I agree, I love good bokeh, but I'd rather have better light, than more bokeh.
Excellent video Rich! I've been contemplating switching from m 4/3 to full frame for video work. Which would mean buying a whole new set of lenses as well. I just don't want to invest so much into a hobby/freelance type of thing I'm doing. This definitely opened my eyes into an understanding that FF isn't all that when it comes to video. I'm looking forward to, and waiting for the release of the GH6. I really appreciate you putting this video together with all the sample footage. I'm also looking at the Laowa 7.5 lens now lol.
You're so welcome Kevin.
We recently took photos with the D800 and the 24-70 2.8 lens for a Christmas light shoot, we did video too with the GH5s and had my GH5 there and took a few random photos, that amazing f1.4 aperture with the 2.8 depth of field have a better image than my DSLR, that's not even using the stabilized sensor for lower shutter speeds.
Glad you enjoyed the video, the Laowa 7.5 is epic, and the GH6...well...already saving up for its release date!!
I have the Pen E-P1, OM-D EM5, both with the original kit-lenses, a E-PL5, the 17 and 45mm 1.8 lenses, the weather-sealed 12-50mm zoom, as well as the 4/3 50mm 2.0 Macro that came with the original Olympus adaptor.
All purchased used, in "near-mint", with low shutter counts, for a bit over US$300.
Learning photography on a OM-1, I also have a bunch of manual-focus OM-lenses.
I will never sell any of them, in fact I'll be buying more M43 cameras as the price goes down.
I would like a FF Nikon Df, but that's mostly because I have some of the classic Nikkors, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8 and 105mm 2.5 back from the film-days, and would like to use them without bothering about the crop-factor.
But otherwise, they perform very well on M43, and on my trusty old CCD Nikon D200..
For those on a budget, or people wanting something better than a phone-camera without breaking the bank, M43 is highly recommended,
you can get some really good deals if you have a bit of patience.
Good one and well done. Heavily dicussed topic, quite hot in times (ui, have a look at those M43 vs FF dicussions in the M43 dpreview forum. Threads get shut down regularly just because things are getting out of control there...). I love the fact you're using the sweetspots and gems of M43, like the Sigma 56/1.4. Great stuff. One other "gem" I found and enjoyed is the Tokina 11-16/2.8 (there is a 11-20/2.8 also, seems even nicer), in combination with a 0,71 reducer (again, even nicer with the 0,64x reducer, which I don't own and can comment about). This will end up as a 7,8 - 11,3/f2.0 zoom. Lots of light, lots of viewing angle, even ok autofocus (nothing to write home about, but it works).
Regarding size I totally agree: the splendid Olympus 40-150/2.8 replaces both my old and trusty Canon EF L 70-200/2.8 and the Sigma 120-300/2.8 at about one fifth of the size and weight (and dare I say: one fifth of the costs also...). I wont even mention the sharpness comparison, the Oly resides in its own league. Btw, same applies to the Panasonic Leica 8-18/f2.8-4.0. Compared to the Canon 17-40 or the 16-35 (any version) its way better in center and corner sharpness, CA, LOCA or any other image distortion, wide open.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!
Totally agree that lenses are DOPE. easier to get better corner sharpness with less image circle (optics).
I have a problem creating shallow enough DOF with wide lenses for mid portrait shots.
with my speedboosted 50 mm zeiss all looks OK, but i need something WIDER. I hardly can create enough separation with the side lens (i dont mind heavy investing in pricey olympus 17 1.2 PRO or PL 14 1.2).
This is such a great video and you have really made me re-think some things. I do a lot of live/music concerts in low light. I use a combo of MTF and FF. I had been thinking about going all FF, but your point about the lower ISO with a bit more DOF makes more sense for some of my camera shots ! I've been using an S1H with a 28-70 @ F2.8 for my wide shot. I'm going to switch that to my GH6 with a 1.4 apeture so I can decrease the ISO, yet keep the DOF of 2.8 on FF (heck maybe I'll even go 3.2) . I just tried a comparison at home with this new way of thinking.. my mind is kinda blown away with how I look at MTF's now! I stil see uses for both, but really shows a FF is not always better! Thank you!!
Thanks Steve!!!
I'm so glad you see it now. The lower ISO achieving the same depth of field is a game changer! Sadly there is a major drive around full frame and the reality is, for everyday paid jobs, FF at f1.4 is just not reliable, as you know on full frame you usually shoot f2.8 minimum, sometimes even f4 if you really need the shot.
Glad I could help 🙏 enjoy that GH6 even more now!
You are 100% correct there! I know I made rookie mistakes of always shooting wide open when first getting into all of this. Always waning that " cinematic" look, but often just getting that "out of focus" shot instead :) Thanks for the reply!
I've been shooting MFT for almost 10 years now, I've never seen it as a limitation
Awesome! Sad that so many people do!
Distances .. you missed the mark.. it is all about the distance of your subject ..full frame Will always be better for small room ,inside à car, inside à space ship,etc etc etc.. if you are outside then it dont matter.. outside =what ever you want..but inside = full frame .
Or wider angle lens?
@@MaitreyaNowyou will lose shalow dept of field
And get distortion. There are limite with how wide you can go ..with a m4/3 its 2x crop .. so even a 24mm is now à 50. You cannot béat full frame with wider lenses..you just cant
Yeah better frame rates on MFT but full frame is catching up in 2024. Not going to sell my GH5s yet BUT the S5ii on the used market is pretty attractive now.
Best explanation of the MFT/FF comparison I've ever seen. Thanks for this!!
Autofocus features are useful in documentrary fiel shooting. Especially if you're in run & gun situations.
I mostly shoot stills on my MFT Olympus em5 MKI and em1 MKIII using modern and vintage lens. I love the format especially when using my vintage prime lens I have a whole range of Nikkor, OM. And Pentax 50 to 400mm. My Nikkor 180mm F2.8 and OM 200 F4 are amazing. 90% of the time MFT does what I need. I picked up a Cannon 6D for very cheap for the other 10%.
i am converted. in fact i am always a 4/3 and m4/3 shooter never find a reason why should i get a bigger sensor. those lovely tiny cameras and lenses are very friendly to my pocket and shoulder 😜
I just got a Panasonic gh5ii coming from a Gx8. What an upgrade geez. I tried a cannon full frame. It’s great, autofocus is a tad better but it isn’t godlike either. Especially since in video I use only manual, I can’t trust it any autofocus period. I’m team m/43 for video! For photography yeah full frame has a slight advantage and certain times when it’s a must but it isn’t often.
I shoot a lot of gigs an venturing into video. Would the still quality be okay in low light, dynamic situations? I often find myself wanting to shoot at smaller aperture to get wider depth if field but can't without raising ISO too much so M43 could solve his perhaps? I guess issue comes down to dynamic range if i want to lift the shadows a lot?
New Subscriber here. Wow! I'm glad you put so much work into this video. After weeks ( months really... ) of reading, comparing, watching reviews, etc... it's THIS video that finally gives me the confidence to go with the 4/3 system. The GH6 is being released in a couple weeks and I'll probably pull the trigger on one. Thanks for doing this video!
Hi i like your videos, thank you for producing them, just 3 things. 1.- The S5 is lighter than the gh5 and about the same size, so the difference in weight would just be in the lenses, but since you are using manual focus, you can adapt lightweight manual lenses like the leica m mount ones for example. 2.- Dynamic range. 3.- I wish the micro four thirds system would go back to the micro part of their philosophy, we should be able to have a choice between the bulkier, heavier, amazing gh5 and gh6 and something smaller, more portable and more recent (i own a gm5). Thank you again sir.
Sadly with really good zoon lens like pl 10-25 size and price is same as ff body/lens…
Thank you for going through this and explaining it in a way that is understandable. I have been hemming an hawing over my next set of gear. I have been a prosumer camcorder using most of my professional career and have been looking at M4/3 or Full Frame equipment, leaning to M4/3... this video has answered my questions and I will certainly be pursuing M4/3.
You're so welcome. Glad I could help you in your decision, with the launch of the GH6 next week...m43 is gonna be an obvious choice for a lot of creatives.
But why do people and companies persist with full frame? Even cinema cameras like Arri and RED make them. What is the secret sauce?
8:09 So in a way, being able to film with MFT at wider aperture f numbers is likely to crush any noise problem with the smaller sensor.
Well done!!! Thank you so much the very informative video... going to use this every time someone tells me to buy a full frame
Should add the link to your business card 🤣 lately the "full frame question crew" is all over.
I often carry a M43 as a backup on photoshoots and in the field as a Plan B in case I have a glitch or a battery dies on my FF Canon, but now that AI imaging tools pretty much levels the playing field in terms of bokeh and low light performance, I find myself using my old Olympus as my primary camera.
The a7c and some compatible lenses are actually lighter than the GH5. Full frame isn't always heavier, but it will always have more bokeh at the same aperture and better low light at the same iso. I don't think it's always better, but I think some of the points you make here don't really make sense. For example, you say that in order to match the DOF, you can simply use a faster lens. But then you go onto equate the 12-35 f2.8 to the 24-70 f2.8, even though the ff lens would have way bigger bokeh. The equivalent would be a 12-35 f1.4, and that doesn't exist. If it did, I am sure it would be as big and heavy as the full frame lens.
THANK YOU!
This is the biggest logical fallacy this video has.
in order to have the “same bokeh/DOF” while being brighter according to this video’s logic, MFT equivalent of Full Frame’s 24-70 f2.8 lens has to be a 12-35 f1.4 lens, which doesn’t exist.
So given that the sensor technology is the same, I still think Full Frame should be better at low light with, while also being much easier to get shallower depth of field at narrower apertures
I’m leaning more towards Panasonic Lumix S5 now…
PL 10-25 beats all that 24-70 f2.8 in terms of image, texture. Separation is enough.
Size is big and price is big, these are downsides(
The problem with this is, you switched to the GH5s at the end but at least you are being honest but didn’t show how the GH5 would look in that last low light scene.
The only thing i need in FF is their AF, for my works in some corporate event, AF is really important to me, we dont want our cam suddenly hunting focus when doing live interview when in F2. But, 95% of my needs is already fulfilled in MFT. If only Lumix makes better AF in video :( currently using G9 and manual lens (because of my fear of AF in MFT)
Have you noticed any improvement in autofocus on the G9 after the latest firmware version?
If you dont need 10 bit olympus could be an option. They got good af
Olympus AF (EM1-II and III) is on par with Canon and Sony. They are also the most rugged camera bodies in the industry, so they might be a great choice for corporate run-and-gun.
@@PascalTristanRedney if only olympus would upgrade their video features and put 10 bit in it. The menu system is also horrible if you are used to the gh5.. panasonic is better in everything expect af. Thats not enough for me to switch.
Why do you use af in an interview? I set my focus manualy and here we go. Any af system can hunt.
I think the general idea of crop factor is a bit misinformed. Yes, it changes field of view, but that’s it. If you’re using a 50 f/1.8 on either MFT or 35mm, you’ll have a “cropped” image from the MFT camera, but at the same distance from the subject with the same settings, both will have the same level of bokeh. Obviously, you’d need to move farther away from the subject or use a different focal length lens to get the same shot as on FF, but getting shorter lenses with fast apertures on MFT is cheaper and easier. So we shouldn’t try to compare the look of one lens on one system to a similar lens on another because the way you use that lens is dependent on the sensor size.
Tl;dr any lens will look the same on MFT or FF under the same conditions, but you would want to use a different lens to get a comparable shot on either system.
Came for the camera talk stayed for the ladies. That spinning shoe in the background is hypnotic. Subbed bro g7 owner
You see...I knew no one wanted to listen to me so I created distractions 🤣
Notice how the equivalent focal lengths across the two sensor sizes don't line up precisely. This is because equivalence is only applied to the horizontal plane, not the vertical (unless you talk about anamorphic lenses, but that is a whole other ballgame). The M43 sensor is taller due to it's aspect ratio, hence more space above and below the subject.
Or it just might be that M43 uses less or no crop when shooting video, which most FF cameras still do (even the new ones).
I'm a happy G9 user, kept it stuck on an old 1.2 firmware to use the unlimited recording hack. As I understand, my G9 has better IBIS, better colors and slightly better AF than the GH5, that is why I chose G9 for video. And people can find a G9 at $700 on second hand markets, why isn't it obvious for everybody that it's still the best choice? Having to hack G9 for unlimited 4K60 recording is a major downer though. I hope GH6 isn't overpriced so I can consider it for an upgrade. One thing I really need as I'm a vlogger, is for PDAF I use AF constantly, I nearly never use MF and it's the only downside of all Panasonic cameras thus far. I wish the Sony FF had better IBIS and uncropped stabilized 4K60, and available for cheaper. Sony failed in all these areas with A7IV/A7Siii, so I am looking at GH6 as my only possible upgrade 😁 Please please Panasonic, don't dissapoint again with your crappy AF system and the GH6 will be the perfect camera!! Can they bring in the Dual ISO from GH5s in a fully stabilized GH6 and with a ton of new amazing feature upgrades somehow??
I love the G9, often thought about adding it to the mix.
Regarding the GH6, I think it's gonna be full blown cinema styled like the no IBIS GH5s, a lot of filmmakers don't like IBIS and Panasonic knows this.
Honestly I thought we were getting a GH6 and GH6s but after the launch of the GH5 MkII I'm not too sure what's gonna happen.
@@RICH_Photography I started with the GH5 hoping to jump into videos more. Which I did, plan worked out. Then I added a G9 for the photocentric work, even faster autofocus, bursts, high res mode. Love it. Then along came firmware 2.x (forgot, 2.0, 2.2, 2.3?) which considerably bumped the video capabilities of the G9 almost into the realms of the GH5: vlog support, VFS/slow motion, different codecs, etc. Since then I haven't touched my GH5 anymore. Of course there still pro-features only available for the GH5: higher bandwidth formats, vector scope, ss in angles, finetuning of shutter sync, etc.
@Rich Photography - can you please do a quick tut on how you do your indoor videos? Camera, light/temp, color grade and export.
Your colors are really good.
I do have a series coming up on how I colour graded, definitely got some unique tips in there 👌😉
I have to disagree with you on one point, with photography 35mm is not necessarily better there either. I own both Nikon and Olympus systems and to be honest I now only use my D850 when I have very specific needs, 90% of the time I shoot with Olympus. M4/3 is more than capable of producing clean A1 (poster sized) prints. Very few photographers ever print larger than that and if you are, you are probably using medium format anyway. Also with the new Panasonic organic sensor the low light and dynamic range performance may end up being in favour of M4/3.
Great video and totally agree with you 100 percent! Thanks for making these videos! You keep me inspired!
You're welcome Chuck, so glad I can inspire you, comments like these is what keeps the channel going ❤️🙌
I couldn't agree more! I think tons of camera youtubers are doing a disservice to beginner filmmakers by hyping up auto-focus. Filmmaking is not exclusively about talking head CZcams videos so not every camera needs incredible auto-focus. It's crippled tons of wannabe filmmakers and they never end up developing real skills. Then during event videography or pretty much anything, all the footage we get back from the full-frame A7siii's the camera is always hunting for focus when people walk in front of it. It's aggravating how over-reliant beginner filmmakers are on auto-focus, especially when for a lot less money, they can get a killer Micro-4/3rds camera with a wireless follow focus.
Well said!!
And you're so right, I know a lot of Sony users that when I watch real paid jobs that videographers would do, there autofocus hunts so much purely because they've been told to rely on it when no real videographer wouldve ever used continuous AF in that situation.
I still don't know which system is better for me. I shoot only in RAW. I only shoot stills. Have no interest in video ever. I crop my images a bit and often print them at 48" by 32" and display them where they are viewed at close range, like in hallways and small rooms. And I prefer LARGE camera bodies because I find them more comfortable to use (like my big Canon 2 series is much preferable to my smaller Canon 5D Mark 4). Based on these criteria and preferences, which do you think would work best for me?
Hey Tom, to be honest if you really want a great camera down to raw photos that's more for photos, something like the new Nikon Z8 is perfect.
The reality of cameras nowadays is that most professionals are forced to create video and photo. This where something like MFT and crop is way ahead with stabilisation and an array of amazing lenses available.
If you wanting amazing high megapixel, good colour rendition for photos and highlight and lowlight control the Nikon Z8 would be probably the best right now.
@@RICH_Photography thank you! I have shot full frame Canons for years and been mostly satisfied with the output. But some folks keep writing articles and making videos about how MFT is so much better, so that has led me to question whether I should switch or not. But I think maybe these MFT proponents might be basing their "better than full frame" stance on things that don't matter to me, like size, weight, and video capabilities. So it's hard to sort through all of this and get an accurate assessment based only on my own usage. What you said helps. Thanks.
Thanks for the video.... very clear and finally some where someone explained it to me and actually calmed me down. I have a micro 4/3 Panasonic G9II and I kept wondering if I should switch to FF because of the bokeh and bad light. But I didn't want to lose compactness and uncropped 4K/50.
Excellent - very grounded, logical backed up with experience
APSC mirrorless has the advantages of both with fewer disadvantages.
So true
11 months ago I sold most of my Canon gear and invested in MFT. I couldn't be happier, especially with weight and size of ultra-wide's and super-teles. And I love that stabilisation means that I get sharp shots in very dark conditions that are just a mess on cameras that are supposed to be better in low light. MFT is a great format
I have EM10-IIIs with primes and D750 with primes and 2.8 zooms. M4x3 does great job as casual hiking tool, while FF allows to get more quality photos with better tones, dynamic range and clarity.
Great comparaison and easy to understand for beginners and experts! Thanks !!!
Glad you enjoyed it 🙌
Really liked your explanation…love that size&weight is the Last Point at your Argumentation everybody else put this out first. Aperture bokeh and depth of Field Never thought about this like you told thank you! I Love my Gh5 🥰
You're welcome, glad you enjoyed it.
Honestly I don't mind lugging around my massive DSLRs for amazing photos...would I like them on a gimbal for a solid 4 to 6 hours, definitely not lol
I think a lot of people still don't understand the aperture point, and that the technology of M43 sensors will be as good as Full Frame sensors in the future, as of now, M43 low light isn't far off full frame, and that aperture gap will always be there.
Thank you for an excellent, detailed, objective, technical discussion with examples to back it up. And now…two years later…the latest offerings from OM Digital Solutions & Panasonic have further improved MFT on all these points. (OMDS/Oly user).
100% agree with everything you said about m43 for video. I hope the m43 system will survive.
I think it's going to be here for many years to come!
It’s a bit older, but would you recommend a Lumix gx85 in 2023?
Why not? Don't let the fact that it's 7 or 8 years old fool you; the Lumix GX85 performs as nicely as cameras released this year. Yes, these most recent ones may have newer engines as faster AF, but if you know what you're doing the results are more or less the same. I use the Lumix G81 (our version of the G85) for video, and I need no other camera for the next 5 years. The New Gear Syndrome is what it is-a syndrome.
What is annoying in M43 unfortunately is the fact that the really compact bodies are either far inferior to GX series (eg. GX9 with no weather sealing) or they are discontinued (again, GX9 and no successor of it). G or GH series bodies are great, but they are comparable in size and weight to Fujis X-H1/2 or Nikons Z6/7.
To be honest, most companies are going to start going bigger. Sony camera shave gotten too small. The G9 for me is way too tiny. Great with a battery grip on. Fortunately the GH6 feels a little bigger and better.
As someone that shot full frame for years, a bulkier camera definitely helps with holding it and being more stable.
But then again, for travel purposes I can understand your point.
@@RICH_Photography which is a bummer. Currently if you want a small body you have to go entry level with all its downsides. I wish we had iPhone mini like LUMIX body - same specs as flagship but in small form factor. For improving gripping a grip add on is sufficient. But I guess it will stay in dreams or wish lists…
GH5 has better stabilisation than an E-M1 III?
Having shot every format in my 40 years as a photographer in New York, I’ve shot 35, medium format, large format 4 x 5, even large format 11 x 14. And I’ll tell you that most cameras can be made to deliver a similar image. The question is what’s more important? Do you want a larger format for higher quality? Or a smaller camera for ease of use? Digital sensors have thrown a monkey wrench into this because new small sensors, like the GH6 has, might actually be delivering better images than larger sensors of just a few years ago.
EXCELLENT! Just love your clear and precise arguments. I am going to stick with Panasonic MFD G9 and add a GH6 when it arrives any day now.
Im really glad you enjoyed it and appreciate the valid points.
I have to say, I cannot wait for the GH6, I think its going to be epic for video, and it seems Olympus is going to drop a banger of a photo camera the day after the GH6 is announced! MFT is going to be epic this year!
Have 2 G9s love them to death. Got an S5 and love that to death. Just got the GH6 and....I think I got used to FF especially for stills. Indo more stills than video. I'm going to keep my G9s as long as I can but between the GH6 and the S5 for stills I may just get a 2nd S5.
Great points. There's a couple of things you didn't consider though.
At the same megapixels account, the FF will be cleaner.
When you do want that bokeh, the FF will give much more because there's no lens faster than 0.85 (kipon) that i can recall. I bet you don't focus manually your lens when you're shooting a photo job, and when you got a good AF (m43 systems are just starting to provide that) you use it, and can take more advantage of that very low DOP if you want to.
Things would be different with a new lens with good AF and a speedbooster (as the g9 mark ii).
To be fair, the megapixel count won’t always make a difference, depending on the technology in the sensor. But it’s a good rule of thumb.
On that note, it’s not as if shooting above ISO6400 is normal, if you shooting above ISO6400 you should be adding more light.
If you are looking for maximum bokeh, then full frame is the way to go, but I photographed my entire career with 2.8 lenses mostly photographed at 3.2 and 3.5 and that bokeh was more than enough. I think the hunt for bokeh is over rated because it’s a way to take the attention off bad light.
Finally, yes, I shoot 100% full manual on every single job, I shoot cine lenses on every job. From music videos, weddings, events, corporate videos, Broll, everything.
If you’re shooting photos, then sure, you use autofocus as I always have, but that’s also single point if you’re shooting events etc. Continuous autofocus is only used for walking shots or sports.
@@RICH_Photographyi got a canon eos R and a BMPCC 4k, i used to shoot apsc and when i moved to FF. I was amazed about the low light capabilities compared to my old equipment. I love my BM but it suffers in low light, I use a speedbooster. So I'm not biased towards any system but there are situations where the FF is needed, for instance shooting weddings when you find yourself in a tight and not very pretty location. Blurring those backgrounds helps. And the AF in these situations is very handy, even in video.
The same applies to shooting concerts in low light. Of course there are noisy FF cameras but most of them beat their m43 counterparts in the same conditions. Unless again, if you use a speedbooster.
Panasonic m43 are just starting to catch up in the AF department.
I liked your analysis. Cheers
We've always filmed on s35, so m43 was a no-brainer when it came along. I can't see any reason to switch and have been campaigning to get our a cam to be m43 like all of our b cams.
Been on the fence for a second camera. Either a second Sony full frame or some sort of crop sensor camera. Micro four has me interested for the variety of lenses on top of a lot of nice features for the price. This does show the actual real benefits to it. I'm honestly surprised at the iso to noise. It looks cleaner at pretty much any iso. Have a apsc cam that seems like it has more noise no matter what compared to my full frame. The apsc would be getting replaced as the second btw
You 100% right with MFT. The lens availability is amazing. The ability to shoot at f1.4 and still achieve the amazing low light capabilities of f1.4 but the depth of 2.8 is a huge benefit.
Most people see it as a negative until their brain hits a switch. In real world scenarios shooting f1.4 full frame is totally unrealistic if you looking for sharp quality content.
Truly think that once you go MFT you'll see an amazing hybrid camera and might start leaving your full frame bodies behind.
dude your shots are mind blowing. amazing job bro
Appreciate it 🙌
Thanks! I learned a lot in this video. It will help me to decide wich camera i will buy in the future :)
Glad I could help!
Excelent vídeo!!, well organized, good script, excelent editing and so on. Thanks!
Much appreciated! Thank you for taking the time to comment and be so positive. It's comments like this that make the late hours all worthwhile 🙌
Dude you're in my head 😂 I love m43 for video + having fast lenses on me in situations where giant full frame cameras aren't welcome. I have a Nikon D810 + several lenses when I want full frame for portraits etc. Best of both worlds.
Man we on the same page!!
@@RICH_Photography Just rewatched -- re: autofocus, it's useful in some non-pro, more run n gun documentary style situations. But the Olympus bodies with phase detect (OM-1, E-M1 II/III/X, E-M5 III) have video C-AF with face tracking that's functionally just as good as Canon Sony etc. The E-M1 II & E-M5 III don't have auto ISO while rolling in manual video mode, it meters untill you start rolling then locks the ISO when you press record. So either way, m43 got it covered. GH series are better cine cameras, Olympus have the AF + even better IBIS. It would be nice if one body combined these but hey there's choices! 🤷♂️
I like your content and presentation. Subscribed
Thank you so much! I really appreciate the support 💪🙌
Lots of compelling arguments here. Just wondering what you think the future of mft and 8k will look like?
I hear you… I had a gh5 and now have an s5. I have to say the low light quality is a million times better on my s5.
Well nearly jumped on a cannon eos r from my g9 I watched another video I understand crop it multiply ❌ 2 for my 1000 pounds worth of lenses till I read when you crop a full frame picture you lose loads of pixels so sticking with micro four thirds
Outstanding video // G9 & GH5s here.
Like music gear, our only limitation is our own minds.
Too true, I do believe gear makes a major difference, it makes life easier too. But whether you have a GH5 or the GH5 mkii, your content quality remains the same.
I shoot digital stills on full-frame, APS-C, and micro 4/3.
I shoot video on APS-C and micro 4/3.
I personally prefer the APS-C video.
Nicely explained!
Thank you!! 🙌
Getting GH7 next month... Excited.
Pro video, for example, “the movies,” have always been filmed on super 35. This like an Apsc crop. Full frame for video is terrible. Among the other things you mentioned, the rolling shutter is terrible on a full frame. The sensor is too big to scan it quick enough. This is a big problem for anything with action. A full frame is just a data beast.
planning to buy the lumix g7 for film makin. my budget can't go higher than this, i hope it will do the job well and last for a while?
I never tell anyone what they should use. I always tell them to use what works for them.
I’ve been having this argument for the last few years, coming from a GH5s I now have a full frame S5 but only because (A)the deal was so good I almost got the purchase price back on the trade in nearly 3 years later and (B)because I bought a set of vintage contax lenses and therefore I wasn’t really saving on the lens weight and couldn’t get a super wide to match. I had the laowa 7.5 as well, it was smaller than a lens cap for one of my contax lenses😂now I carry around a huge sigma 14-24 2.8 that takes up most of my camera bag. It was almost like I made this video as all your views were like mine:) subbed
not to say im unhappy with gh5s but how do you feel your upgrade?
Same slow zeiss set 25 35 50 85)
Lens i reaally need for good all around work is PL 10-25 (very pricey and heavy as FF setup). So no advantages of m4/3 as for solo player...
From my experience full frame f2.8 is the sweet spot for video. It give good separation and not being too shallow dof. F4 might be ok, but I find I am wishing I had more separation whenever I use f4 lens especially bellow 50mm. That is why a 24-70/28-70 f2.8 is 90% on my camera. This is one reason I feel m43 is short. To get f2.8 dof on m43, I need f1.4 lens. So basically I need a 12-35 f1.4 lens on m43. There is only the panasonic 10-25 f1.7 that is the closest. But look at sony there are plenty options at this range with much affordable price. You have way more lens choice from full frame than m43 lens. m43 is fine, but they need make fast lens not those f2.8 f4 zoom lens. Also if you use full frame for photo. then better just invest in full frame for both photo and video. One camera brand for photo and another camera brand for video is not ideal. So my opinion is for the ultimate hybird shooter, full frame is still the way to go. Granted you will spend more money on it.
Oh, cheaper F2.8 FF lens than m43! But after I got my hands on the sigma 24-70F2.8 with Lumix S5. When I opened the images on my computer, my feeling is W.T.F.! The images look out of focus across the entire frame! The colors are so flat and de-saturated. That's when I realized how sharp my 10-25 is and the "cheaper" FF 2.8 glass vs "expensive" 10-25F1.7 theory is simply wrong. 10-25 should be compared to $2200-$2400 proper 24-70F2.8 glass, and consider the $1500 price, besides it replaces the 16-35+24-70 combo, even though now I have enough budget, I am still staying in M43.
i feel you but 10--25 is awesome... Sadly, i can`t afford it for every day personal use(
What i really need is wide angle lens for mid people shots that will create enough separation.
100% agree. MFT or crop sensor. You will always run into a wall with it. But the most important thing to note is that the smaller the sensor, the more difficult the manufacturing process is to produce the camera and lenses. Which also means the price goes up for the components.
@@JinKazama92 what wall do you mean here? If it does its job, why even bother about this?
@@mazurindependentfilmmaking2713 i'm not taking about a literal wall if that's what you're asking.
With the same picture at the same distance cannot get away from all the extra sensor area compared to a smaller sensor. I always see the difference myself in less detail.🙃
i am currently getting back into photography and i initially wanted to go with sony because a7 type bodies can bereally cheap used too and i allways wanted a ff because i never had one.
but the more i think about it, the more it becomes a ''i want it... but i dont actually need it prob. 95% of the time''
on the other hand there are so many advantages to m43 that i actually really want. from the ibis, to the weather sealing, the smaller lenses, the sheer amount of lenses you can use and adapt and on top i dont really used that much ultra wide angles anyways so something like a 17mm oly would be more than fine. on the top end however it gives me loads and loads of flexibility going forward, even going as far and making certain types of photography possible i would never thought about. like wildlife or macro photography, where the 2x crop becomes your advantage even. want to do wildlife? but you cant afford this massive 600mm ff lens? well... a 300mm m43 lens is way smaller and actually affordable and it gives you the same 600mm range.
and on top i just love how big and flexible the ecosystem is too since everything is interchangable, i can get a small pocket camera, a lumix one, something for videos, a big bulky body for studio, olympus bodys for ibis... and all of them share the exact same lens mount wich makes every lens i purchase basically double in value because all of my cameras can use it. on top: yes there are cheap lenses for other systems too, but if you want to go for the higher end glass, its damn near ridiculous in price. with m43, its different. PRO lenses like the zuiko 14-40 2.8 are actually really affordable. you can get those used for like 350 ish. same with the awesome 60mm 2.8 macro lens, you can get this guy for 250-300 used. for like 1000$ you can pretty much build yourself a fully working lens lineup covering almost everything you ll ever need. with FF you might get 1 good lens. 2 and you re already spending more than 1000$
thinking of it, m43 might even the most flexible plattform there is period. and there are so many benefits like size, weather sealing and others and almost no downsides that would affect me too much. a little bit more noise on smaller sensor... well for those occasional times when you really need to crank it up... LR has ai denoise and its great.
Dope video! But am I the only one who noticed that sneaker floating/spinning in mid air in the background? Lol
LoL it's the only way I get my watch time up, I hypnotise people 😜
I'm constantly back and forth between upgrading to a GH6, BMPCC 4K or 6K, or going FF Sony or Canon, but I think you made my decision a bit easier.
From what I can gather from this video, FF is fantastic for stills since you want to only have your subject in focus and 1.4 would blur the background completely. M4/3 is perfect for video since you can use a fast lens for low light and not completely blow out the scene. FF isn't fantastic for video and M4/3 isn't fantastic for stills.
I primarily do video, so I'll stick to M4/3, APSC, or Super 35, and get a FF if I ever have a need for high quality stills.
I'm still learning every day, so if anyone reads this and can give me a different opinion I'm all ears. For now, thank you for making this video, clear and to the point. Take care!
Since you asked for feedback, you have far too many absolutes that you’re juggling. Most of the absolutes you mention are only marginally true, under certain circumstances. For example the Canon 5D is the camera that started the video DSLR craze. And it’s full frame! And it’s been used in many professional productions and TV, so clearly full frame is fine for video as well. Think of it this way. Someone will tell you that a Jeep is best used for off-road. Yet we see Jeeps driving down every Road and Highway across the country. Same with cameras. They need not be pigeonholed.
@Just Watchin' y i use speedboosted vintage zeiss 50 1.8 and its outstanding. But i dont get enough separation with wider lenses(