Why Micro Four Thirds Beats APS-C - the Micro 4/3 Advantage
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 сер 2024
- Why Micro Four Thirds Beats APS-C - the Micro 4/3 Advantage
One of the advantages of the micro four thirds systems is the small size of the gear required to use use the micro 4/3 system. This video is just a quick comparison between Panasonic Lumix and Canon Rebel. honestly, I use both systems every day but for day trips, I will use the Lumix G9.
All audio was captured and unedited using the YC Onion C1 wireless microphone system. I have a full review here:
• Over 800 foot range😲My...
Or go an grab it here:
www.yconion.com/products/c1-w...
Let's get into it! The Canon kit lens is 18-55 mm which in full frame terms functions like a 29-88mm and the Panasonic Lumix 14-42 mm functions like a 28-84 mm. These are very similar focal ranges.
The build quality, focal range, and photo quality are so similar, why would I want to carry the lens that is three times larger?
#m43 #micro43 #lumixg9 #lumix
I made a mistake, the Canon lens with 1.6 crop factor behaves like a 28-88mm and the lumix behaves like a 28-84. Very close considering the size difference
A typo. 28-84 vs 28-44 for MFT.
@@GoonieGooGoo910 55mm x 1.6 crop = 88
@GoonieGooGoo910 also, love the name GoonieGooGoo, classic Eddie Murphy!
@@whiplite meant for MFT. 14-42 is 28-84 not 28-44. Figure it’s a typo.
Yep, Eddie Murphy :) he made an impression on me with Delirious!
@GoonieGooGoo910 made an impression on me too lol yes I pinned a comment correcting the statement I made. I was too lazy to fix it in the video lol
Excellent points. Most DSLR's in the 2000's were APS-C's. I know personally of professional photographers who were shooting weddings with 10 Mpx Nikon's at F2.8 to F4. No one was complaining about sensor size or Noise back then. Now that MFT's are better than those professional use cams, there really isn't much to complain about.
That's what I keep saying lol, anything within 8-10 years old is probably good enough
I used Canon D60's for all of my work. Weddings, graduation or anything that paid money! I don't think anyone ever asked what camera I used.
@@peterhayward1848 right! The only people that EVER asked what camera I was using was other photographers lol
I've spent far too much on cameras, film and digital over the years. Retired years ago but do some charity and stuff for friends. Lumix MFT now. Works fine and no bent shoulders!@@whiplite
Hi, i came from APSC and jumped into MFT. Love the MFT eco-system let alone its used market lenses. I made the jump because the lenses eco system is more affordable than APSC’s. I have the opportunity to buy a lot of lenses with various focal length, prime or zoom of used lenses from Pana Leica, Sigma, Lumix, Olympus and other brands. I could never have such luxury in APSC. Their lenses is way more expensive than MFT. And the size.. yeah MFT lenses are smaller, really appreciate its size. MFT is practical to me.
Well said!
Excellent video 😮!
@@stephanweiskorn6760 thanks for the kind words!
As a fan of shooting wildlife, the difference is even more extreme. The Panasonic/Leica 100-400 is one of the smallest, lightest 100-400mm lenses out there(from what I've seen, only the Canon RF 100-400 is beats it), and that's before you take into account the 2x crop factor making the field of view look like a 200-800. It's a fantastic lens.
Yes. That's a great point! For telephoto shooters the weight savings is huge. I have the Olympus. 40 to 150 which acts like an 80 to 300 and I can put it in my pocket 😆
Nice stuff, thanks!
Thanks for the kind words
Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between FF and Smartphone. Whichever camera gets you take more pictures is the better camera
Agreed, the best camera you have, is the one you have with you!
Amen. I just looked at my D850 with a 24-70 f2.8 versus my E-M1 iii with a 12-40 f2.8. One is a beast in size, the other is compact.
Right!!!
I love Nikon D70 and D300s and use m4/3 like em5, em10 mark II, and small lumix GF8. All these cameras are good.
You are absolutely correct they are all good!!
I have an Olympus EM5 MIII and a Canon M6 MII which I often tag team together. With adapters I often use Canon EF lenses for both. Overall I'd say the Canon has a slight edge on still photos but not by much. However more often than not I can't tell a difference in quality. The Olympus is definitely superior in video especially with its stabilization tools. The Olympus is also more fun to use and tends to be more reliable as sometimes the Canon freezes or doesn't focus well.
Great information. That's kind of my point here. I actually shoot with a Canon APSC almost daily but for outings I prefer the LUMIX. I can pack more lenses in the same bag. Having the G9 I'm not saving size or weight with the camera itself but the lenses.... I can put 3 in the space of one canon lens lol
The equivalence is different. The Canon kit is roughly a 29-85mm f/9 equivalent at the long end. The M43 lens is a 28-84mm f/11 equivalent. Of course it is going to be smaller when it's almost 1 stop less performing in terms of equivalence. Though this is ignoring the fact that Canon APS-C sensors are generally really bad in performance and is similar to M43 in real use.
M43 is great for people who don't need shallow DoF and generally shoot only in the day. If one needs anything with a f/5.6 or faster equivalent look, full frame will always be smaller and lighter (ironically) when you compare equivalent lenses. Take the Pana Leica 10-25mm f/1.7 (20-50 f/3.4 equiv) vs the Sony 20-70mm f/4. The Sony beats it in every single metric, price, size, weight, sharpness. Or Olympus f/1.2 Pro primes which cost and weigh more than 2x that of a f/2.5 lens from Sony.
I shoot Fuji and Sony now, and my A7C with a f/2 prime lens is smaller and lighter than my Fuji with a f/1.4 prime lens for the equivalent DoF.
f/stop does not vary between sensor sizes, a f2.8 lens on a fullformat sensor, and a M43 sensor will let in the same amount of the light to the sensor, if you use a external light meter, you will use the same exposure between a fullframe sensor, APS-C sensor and M43 sensor. In terms of exposure there are no difference, light meters does not have a specific setting for each sensor size.
Therefore a f/9 and f/11 equivalent is just plain wrong when it comes to exposure, they are still at their respective f/stops, what changes however is depth of field.
When it comes to depth of field, a 25mm f/1.2 M43 lens would be roughly equivalent to a 50mm f/2.5 lens on a fullframe camera, with the camera at the same distance from the subject *5.
There's really no full equivalency between different formats, don't mix f/stop (exposure) and depth of field.
Sources:
1. ua-cam.com/video/__pmrvie8jQ/v-deo.html
2. photographylife.com/sensor-crop-factors-and-equivalence
3. photographylife.com/what-is-crop-factor
4. www.adobe.com/uk/creativecloud/photography/discover/crop-sensor-vs-full-frame.html
5. photo.stackexchange.com/a/91187
"M43 is great for people who don't need shallow DoF and generally shoot only in the day." For low-light performance the actual aperture is key, and there m43 fares quite well. The tiny (and rather cheap) Olympus F1.8 primes already perform very well, and modern m43 sensors are not as bad as most people try us to believe (using the new AI de-noise in Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom does wonders even with older sensors, if need be). So the moment DoF does not play a major role (I was through this phase years ago), sensor size becomes much less of a concern. My m43 kit is tiny when it comes to lenses (Olympus and Panasonic, no pro lenses) and very lightweight, even if I pack everything I have, giving me a 24 to 300 mm FF equivalent focal range (including a perfectly fine macro lens), and it cost me less than a good zoom lens from Sony (I do have an A7, IQ of the sensor is gorgeous - and there it ended for me, as decent lenses did cost an arm and a leg some years ago, and they are always bigger than the m43 focal length equivalents; I actually became serious with m43 *after* I bought the A7 with the 24-70 mm kit lens, adapted lots of old glass and some newer Leica lenses - and found out that it is not for me). Each his own.
@@morten1389 Equivalency matters when it comes to image quality. The argument that the same amount of light hit the sensor is nonsense, because when we view images, we're expanding the image circle up to our viewing size. And it's pure physics that a larger image circle will result in a clearer image (more detail less noise) whether in print or digital. If exposure was all it took, why isn't my smartphone shooting the same quality as a full frame using f/1.8 lenses?
E.g. Shooting f/8 on full frame vs shooting f/4 on M43. That allows M43 to use 2 stops lower ISO.
However, it is important to understand that we cannot cheat physics. There is an upper limit to this, and most crop sensors fall apart beyond ISO 3200. There's no such thing as a free lunch. It works both ways. With full frame, one cannot expect decent image quality at f/8 ISO 12,800. That's when we will need to add lighting.
@@c.augustin M43 sensors aren't bad by any means. They're still plenty capable as long as one knows the limits and work around it. Regarding AI denoise, I've had mixed results. I use DXO DeepPrime and Lightroom AI denoise, they are very situational tools. E.g. DXO falls apart when there's hair or fur detail. So I recently picked up an A7C in pursuit of better quality records of memories important to me. I still enjoy APS-C a lot as I find it's a good balance so I don't hate on smaller formats. I carry a Ricoh GR3 every day. Every format has it's time and place, and everyone is different too.
The thing is, a tiny m43 kit will be just as tiny as a full frame equivalent kit. Only thing is nobody makes f/4 or f/3.5 primes. But If you have something like a Leica M lens with an autofocus adapter, it won't be very much different to the m43 primes. Things like the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 or Skopar primes look really interesting when it comes to adapting lenses.
@@professionalpotato4764 So, a 90-300 mm 1:4-6.5 has the same size and weight as my Lumix 45-150 1:4-6.5, and costs the same? That's cool - which FF lens would that be? (Don't use the DoF equivalency again, because I don't care about DoF, just practicality, so just same aperture range.)
It seriously ridiculous how sharp every m43 lens is. I think I’ve found one(17mm oly) that isn’t sharp over the years and other people love it so it may just be my unit. The quality of every m43 lens is an amazing benefit. I had so much bad luck with Nikon.
I have found the same thing. I also find adapting old Minolta or Pentaxt lenses to be enjoyable, they are typically bright and sharp
I think it's probably more of a function of how new all the m43 stuff is. If you compare to newer (post 2010s) from any brand, incl. Nikon most sill be quite sharp. And conversely, of you look at Micro Four Thirds prequal the Four Thirds DSLR system you'll find some terrible lenses. Lenses are just generally quite sharp these days.
I would guess that the left one was m43 due to the larger DoF. But other than that, both are fine with me. (Since I shoot m43 myself when using digital, I'm fine with image quality, at least with my Olympus Pen F; the E-M10II is not on par with it, but does fine for everyday use - it is actually more fun to use, so I often don't mind the slightly lesser image quality.)
You are right the one on the left is m43. The real giveaway is the aspect ratio
@@whiplite Oh yeah, I didn't look for that.
@@c.augustin I left the original 2 photos in the original ratios to see if anyone catches it lol
@@whiplite That's mean! 😂
This is the main thing i dont like about m43. The dof is way too huge. I've shot all 3(FF,APSC,M43) and having to deal with non-existent bokeh is annoying for portraits. So i pretty much just use 70-300mm and similar lenses for m43.
I think the “obsession” that the M43 compact size is a huge advantage is a misnomer. I have the OM-1 and 12-40 f2.8and the Nikon Z6ii with 24-70f4. So effective DOF is a 24-80f5.6 vs 27-70 f4. Size and weight difference is minimal. IQ, will take the FF files over the M43 any day.
I do agree somewhat. I had the Sony A7 full frame camera and that camera body was smaller than any of my APSC mirrorless cameras. Once you add the full frame lens however the size/weight was pretty well the same. On the flip side, this G9 M43 body is larger actually than most cameras I have owned but with the small lenses it brings it back into the same size/weight class. However, if you pickup the smallest m43 body and the smallest m43 lens....
The Micro Four Thirds have had a lot of unfavorable “labels” attached to them to justify the use of larger sensors. But rigorous reviews have been done and in “real life” (photos):
1. Noise, not only the size of the sensor intervenes, other factors also intervene and in the latest Micro Four Thirds models the difference is becoming smaller (and you have to go beyond ISO3200 to appreciate differences...).
2. Dynamic range, there are also more factors involved than the size of the sensor and the differences, in most situations, will not be appreciated (for example, in DXO Mark they assign a dynamic range of 13.4 steps to the OM System OM5 and 14.3 to the Nikon Z6 full frame 14.3, that is, not a step difference... therefore in a correctly exposed shot we will not see such a difference).
In short, a bad reputation has been created from the 10 megapixel sensor era of the past and carries with it even now (due to the interest of the detractors of the system, which curiously was always open to all manufacturers...)
For example, with a M.Zuiko 25mm f1.8 it will give us a creamy blur (the premium Zuikos have a really good bokeh) similar to a Canon 50mm at f2.8, and it will be difficult to distinguish what it is used for. camera took the image...😅
But what about “Ecology” (which we like to boast about so much now) in the development of photography equipment:🧐
It is striking that at a time when we all want to be respectful of the environment, to be “ecological” (take care of nature), we do not take this into account in the world of photography.
If we can reduce the cost of materials (optical glass, metal, plastics...) to build photographic equipment, with the consequent energy savings and less waste in the future...; It seems like it should be done and therefore manufacturers follow that path. But it seems that the majority of firms have not opted for this and want to reimpose the format of the past, which they now call "full format", when it is none other than the "classic" format or the traditional 24x36mm of the old support reel. chemical.
But let's not fool ourselves, at this point it is clear that if we compare the results in the digital world of the "classic" format (24x36), with those of APS or Micro Four Tercios, in the vast majority of situations, there are no important differences in relation to the quality of the images obtained. But, there is a big difference when it comes to the cost of the equipment (body and objectives) and also the added weight (unhealthy for the person carrying it).
Then a question arises: why are most companies so stubborn in designing a sensor with the “classic” 24x36mm “invented” in its day by Leica? I think the answer is quite obvious: these manufacturers (the old acquaintances and the one that once bought Minolta) want to continue taking advantage of their investment in optical designs from the past... (it does not seem that they are seeking to do the photographer a favor) .
PS: Curiously, and ironically, Leica implemented the 24x36mm as a reduction of the chemical support format of the time (90x90 and 90x60cm) to achieve smaller, discreet and easy to transport camera bodies... And it represented a great revolution in photography " analog” as it has been a great revolution in digital photography to use smaller sensors than the old-fashioned 24x36mm...😬
For portabilty I have my S23 Ultra!😉
I have the s23... just the regular one.
I believe that every camera system have it's unique advantages and for Micro Four Thirds it's these incredibly compact zoom lenses. This is even more true for tele zooms. Provided you have enough light, if you need a light zoom kit it's hard to find beat m43.
Personally I only use primes so APS-C is still plenty small.
I prefer primes a swell. I do have a couple zoom lenses for the G9 and they are tiny!
I could tell right away. One image is 4:3 and the other one 3:2
@88steps81 good catch!
I shoot micro 4/3 and APS-C digital cameras.
I use 14/20/45mm lenses on the micro 4/3 digital camera.
I use 16/23/56mm lenses on the APS-C mirrorless digital camera.
I see very little difference in image quality.
Point made :)
you have to apply the crop factors to the ISO and aperture as well, not just the focal length
Oh, absolutely, but these lenses are general use, most likely used outdoors, I think they are in the same league
That is not true. Sensor size does not impact iso or f-stop. Two myths that are all over UA-cam.
@johnchastain4351 this is a rabbit hole I won't go down lol
14 - 42 micro 4/3 is equivalent to 28-84 at full frame. Crop factor X 2.
Yes I made a mistake in the video but corrected it in the description 👌
m4/3 is good in a broad day light at iso100. aps-c on the right side.
@AdamGibril I beg to differ. I've owned several APSC, several FF,and several M43. while it may be easier to achieve good low light performance on full frame, my best low light performer was my Blackmagic Pocket 4k (a m43 camera) I could push boundaries on that camera that none of my APSC cameras could touch
@@whiplitei was talking about photography, not video.
@@AdamGibril ah, even then, I've come to appreciate m43. I actually bought 2x G85 cameras and returned both immediately because I didn't know how to work with m43 at the time and hated the indoor results. Now, with my G9 and proper lenses and lighting... LOVE IT!
@@whiplite G9 is nice, mind you, i did not say m4/3 is bad, aps-c is just better. i had G9 before, i found myself shooting in low light a lot, it just did not work for me, the pixel shift did good though.
@@AdamGibril different tools for the same job :)
well, choices are always someone own's preference.. however, the comparison is unfair.. why not try to shoot iso 6400 at night with the same settings and then try to tell the difference, you will be amaze on what you said on this video...
This video was not really intended to compare the lenses performance, but just the fact that 2 kit lenses of similar focal ranges can be so different
@@whiplite hahahahaha, and saying "it's the same, I can't see a difference". It's like saying that porshe is the same as family kia, in city they drive the same ! both have wheels so they drive in the same way, no difference in how they perform on street! Videos like this should be banned or labeled as misleading to people who have no idea what they are buying
You buy APS-C to bash it over, I buy APS-C because it's the most affordable one. We are not the same (jk)
Lol nice. Truth be told I shoot on a t6i (apsc) almost daily. This video was not intended to bash apsc
I spent $800 on a used MFT setup and haven't been impressed. The camera size isn't beneficially smaller and I ended up having to buy a huge grip to be comfortable anyway. The stabilization wasn't a miracle worker either. I feel my money would have been spent on a better smartphone or a cheap Sony body paired with a good stabilized lens.
@annoyedok321 out of curiosity which m43 camera did you get and which lens?
Another 4/3 guy here 😊
Wicked
Try the Panasonic 14-45 (kit lens}, it's better (sharper} than 14-42.
I'll check it out!
Hi ,The right side picture.
Hi, the right was APSC and the left was M43
Left ac right m 43
@@markbelcher888 other way around :)
I don't think you can really compare an old Canon Lens with a 'modern' mirrorless M4/3.
The only real APS-C options are FUJI, and the lens sizes aren't that different between the two when looking online. I'd love to see a full round up of common M4/3 lenses vs Fuji APS-C lenses.
Ooh I would like to see that as well. The only comment I can make is if you buy the latest rebel bodies (t7, t100 for example) it's STILL this lens you get with the kit. I've had 5 copies of this lens lol
If you buy a LUMIX with a kit lens like a G7... there is a good chance the kit lens will be this 14-42 (I've had three of these, two were the kit kens and one Olympus version)
Even manufacturers seem to consider these two lenses to be pretty comparable
@@whiplite Very true! Do people still buy bodies like the T7 though? I might be too much of a nerd to be in that demographic lol
They do! And they still but the G7. Great cameras still for the price point. I myself still rock a t6 almost daily and just had my t3 out recently 🙃
they are not the same lens because if you look at the focal lengths equivalent one should also compute the aperture equivalence.
You are correct however, on a bright sunny day (the only time I'd ever bust out a zoom lens) there is enough light that your lens is likely taking the shot at f8(ish) anyway which both lenses are capable of competing against each other with.
In the case of prime lenses, I'd say aperture is maybe more important. But that's just my own opinion ;)
@@whiplite it is still not the same lens. In absolute terms, the APS-C lens offers more light (same light density but over a larger area.) It also offers more details and less chromatic aberration if resolution in lines per mm, and CA in micrometers are the same (because compared to the larger frame, those optical issues have less impact).
It might still be worth it to use MFT in order do downsize the gear, allowing being more agile or alternatively carrying more lenses which then could result even in higher quality than APS-C gear (like if for APS-C you reached maximum zoom and can only crop now while with your lightweight MFT gear you have a longer lens available so no or just little cropping has to be done in post).
But my original comment is mostly about the mistake converting focal length and forgetting aperture.
@Bethos1247-Arne well put. I'll go on record though and say I didn't "forget" about aperture but for the purposes if this video, I simply "ignored" aperture lol.
For the common population using these average quality or "kit" zoom lenses, they are very much the same Lense in terms of their average use and performance. Any pro photographer is going to be looking at faster or brighter lenses anyway and fully expects to be carrying heavy equipment
@@whipliteI am not a pro, currently using fullframe, but keep my APS-C gear around and use it every now and then as it has unique advantages like full-range zoom lenses. A friend of mine is a pro, no weddings but reports and other photo journalism, he uses a professional Olympus MFT camera because it fits his needs best.
I think in the long run, more and more pros could switch to smaller sensors as with the technology advancing, images are good enough for the client. I also think, photography should be taught accurately. While, here I agree with you of course, it would also not be helpful to go into all nuance for every comparison, but the thing with equivalent aperture is overlooked again and again, creating false expectation.
I support the idea of downsizing gear as one of many methods to lower the barrier getting into photography. Some poor folks ask their friends which recommend a fullframe with 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 zooms, or a couple of high-end 1.4 primes. While a shallow DOF is not as important as many think, a friend of a friend, also an enthusiastic amateur, uses worse gear than me and get less background blur than I do, but on average he creates the better photos. With all that, calling those two lenses the "same" is only as right as saying cropping would to the same image as using a longer lens.
left mft, right apsc
Correct
AI technology pretty much levels the playing field as far as ISO performance is concerned. So I'm sticking with Micro 4/3 as I find it more fun and convenient to use.
I mean, I guess thats partially true. I mean, all things eing equal, if you had a modern phone sensor, and a modern full frame sensor of the same resolution, quality, and build, no amount of ai will may the two images the same. But all tech has come a long way and they are all usable! I enjoy m43
There's also the question of exactly how the high ISO noise looks. For example, I find that the Panasonic GM1 I had a very pretty high ISO noise pattern, so i never minded the noisy images from that camera.
@torb-no of all the m4/3 cameras I have owned. The ONLY one I have enjoyed is the G9. I had the Blackmagic pocket 4k which was AWESOME in low light but that has a dual iso sensor. I do miss that dual iso sensor lol
Just a note, I'm not sure what you were filming with, but when you held up the lens, I couldn't see the lenses so have to rely on your verbal description. It's blurry. You were in focus, but the DOF is too shallow.
I do believe I was using a 25mm 1.7. Thats a good point maybe I'll stop it down a bit going forward
I feel this video somehow incomplete
The one thing I didn't talk about is aperture.
The geometry of optical design makes it so that for human portraits you need 60-90mm focal length on ANY CAMERA system. If start dipping into 35mm or lower range you get elongated noses and egg head faces. The optical rendering of 3D geometry is NOT to be confused with field of view equivalents. So if MFT has a crop factor of 2, you may think/hope that a 40mm lens gets you the 80mm geometric rendering of reality, it does not. A focal length is a focal length in any system and all you are changing is a field of view. Plenty of videos on ut demonstrating the focal length effect on human portraiture. Why is it that in the used lens market, the most expensive old/vintage lenses are the 85mm type by some factor.
Agreed, on my old 6D my favorite portrait lens was my 85. On my apsc bodies I still preferred the 95 and on the m43 I like the 50 to 80 range.
@@whiplite Don't agree with his false knowledge. On 6x6 Medium format an 80mm lens is only a 44mm equivalent. Hence why it was used commonly on MF film as a nifty fifty equivalent. If equivalency doesn't work, we wouldn't have cameras on our smartphones. The fact you can take a decent non-distorted photo from a device with a sensor the size of a rice grain proves his claims wrong.
@@professionalpotato4764 your rice-sized sensors have a post processing combain supporting their rendering of reality; in basic photography you don't have it hence field of view is all you are changing resulting in egg faces; MFT became popular in Asia, where shorter focal lengths caused greater 3D features of faces which was a bonus vs flat faces of asians with regular full frame 85mm standard
@@utube321piotr Just go google and read up the articles on compression myth on petapixel and fstoppers. They have real world examples to prove that your confusion is based on myth. A 12mm lens cropped to have the same fov as a 85mm lens will have 100% the exact same image as long as the sensor plane stays put. Whiplite has disabled links of any kind so I can't link the articles here.
I also don't know what kind of racist bias you have assuming that MFT is popular because of nicer portraits. I see 1 MFT user for every 3-5 Canon and Sony shooters.
Idk my favorite portrait lens is the M4/3 Panny 20mm f/1.7 on my GH3. When I’m shooting film I mostly use a Minolta 50mm f/1.4 on an XE7. I don’t really like the look of a long lens.
Simply put, the pixel size size on a 16mp m4/3 sensor is roughly the same size as the pixel on a 24mp aps-c sensor, somewhat smaller than a 20mp, so low light the difference is not that big. In good light outside of cropping, the difference is there, but again, for most, it won't matter.
Considering 99% of people use their phones for pictures... even m4/3 is a killer cam
Left one is obviously 4x3.
👍 The key is the ratio
My iPhone is significantly smaller than a MFT. If I take a photo of that bike with it, you wont be able to tell the difference either.
True! But there are things the camera can do that your phone can't!
@@whiplite really ? I though that sensor size doesn't matter
@ArturOleszczuk1991 absolutely sensor size matters but that's one part of a larger puzzle
like mft and have 2 :)
Right now I just have the one. I'm waiting to see what the G9ii will be all about
#NoFreeLunch because you can’t beat the physics…
Physics is overrated
@@whiplite Dynamic range and depth of field are not overrated though. Compact and low weight are definitely virtuous but the physics is an immovable reality. There is always a trade off.
@@bradl2636 pros and cons to every system
@@whiplite Yes..!
This is a really bad faith demonstration. You are comparing a very old DSLR lens for the APSC system against a mirrorless lens for the M43.
If you compare modern mirrorless APSC lenses against M43 lenses, the advantage disappears - and actually swings in APSC's favour depending on which lenses you are comparing.
The EF-M (mirrorless APSC) version of the Canon lens (EFM 15-45mm) is only 45mm in length which is almost 2cm shorter than the M43 Olympus lens you have there. The Sony APSC 16-50 is shorter at 40mm. The Nikon version is half the length of your M43 stalking horse at 32mm.
Also you pick a photo that wouldn't demonstrate the advantages of a larger sensor in anyway whatsoever. With that shot, there is no subject separation or depth of field. Most people will struggle to tell the difference between 1" and medium format on a 1080p youtube video.
It's what I had. But I believe the point remains true. It's physics. A smaller sensor need a smaller lens.
Two comparable lenses you could say are the Lumix 12-60mm f3.5-5.6 vs the Canon 24-105 f4 to 7.1
Comparable focal lengths, comparable specs, even comparable prices. The Canon is 30% longer at maximum range and 1.8 x heavier and doesn't have as much range as far as focal range and sensor crop are concerned
The RF 50mm 1.8 and the Lumix 25 1.7. They are about the same length but the Canon is 1.13× wider. Not a big difference but the Canon is also 30% heavier than the lumix equivalent
@@whiplite Again, I would argue you are picking bad faith straw men. 12-60mm for M43 and 24-105mm for Canon APSC isn't comparable. The Lumix is 24-120mm equivalent and the canon is 38mm - 170mm. There are completely different ranges.
You aren't comparing like for like.
And comparing a 50mm (which is a 75mmish equivalent) with a 25mm (which is a 50mm equivalent) is not comparable in any way.
Even if you did find comparable examples for which the M43 is lighter - having one example where it is lighter doesn't really show the advantages of the system as a whole.
Lets use 50mm equivalents. The 25mm 1.7 from lumix is 2mm shorter and half the weight of Canon's 35mm f1.8 lens. But the Sony 35mm f1.8 is 15mm shorter and the same weight as the Lumix 25mm 1.7. Then the Fuji 35mm is actually lighter than the Lumix 25mm - but same weight as the Olympus Zukio 25mm.
As a whole, if you compare all the available options across the board there really isn't a size or weight advantage to M43. They fall into pretty much the same range.
@@whiplite let me put it this way.
I can pick and choose specific lenses in a similarly unfair way to suggest that FF is more compact than APSC.
Sony's 50mm f2.8 "G" lens is almost half the length and less than half the weight of the Olympus Zukio 25mm f1.2. You could definitely argue that due to the difference in depth of field for M43 and FF, f1.2 and f2.8 is comparable.
If I were using your logic, this would show that M43 is much bulkier than FF.
This clearly isn't true and it is clearly bad faith to suggest it is by cherrypicking the evidence presented.
@JimIBobIJones slap those two Canon lenses on to full frame bodies... the focal ranges with the ones I compared are similar.
I'm not here to argue but physics is physics
M43 is a smaller sensor requiring smaller lenses. Look at your phone, tiny sensor, tiny lens
@whiplite3613 First, we are comparing m43 to apsc... Bringing in a full frame comparison is not relevant.
In terms of the physics, it isn't that black and white. Whilst the physics of the lenses size is determined by sensor, it is the size of the elements' diameter which is affected. But the relevant factor for weight and portability is length, not diameter.
If you think about how the physics work, it doesn't support a general argument that smaller sensor = lighter lenses. Camera lenses are arrays of movable elements that are stacked together. Even in a prime lens, you have up to 10 elements to enable exposure adjustment. For full frame, which is twice the diagonal length of M43, the sheer size difference of the sensor size - which is diagonally twice that of m43 - does generally lead to the elements to be spaced out more (in most cases, there are some super compact FF lenses). Apsc is only 26% larger diagonally than m43, so the elements stack is going to be similar in both length and diameter.
Whilst the difference in diagonal length is small, the area of the sensor is significantly larger. APSC is 60% larger than m43 in area, which is a sizable advantage.
Your smartphone analogy is also another straw man. Just as DSLR lenses are not compareble to mirrorless lenses, Smartphone lenses are not comparable to interchangeable camera lenses. Smartphone cameras are dumbed down to make them portable. They have fixed apertures and their lens arrays only use 2-3 plastic elements. I would argue this goes back to cherrypicking unsuitable examples to prove a point being bad faith arguments.
Not the same.
Not the same aperture equivalence.
Not the same bokeh
Not the same low light capabilities
@prenomnom7325 the point kk da wa that in good lighting, neither lens will be wide open anyway and focal lengths are so close, they basically do the same job lol
Pick the heavier one, it will burn your calories
Lol nice. Sometimes I prefer heavier equipment if it's windy for example, it's easier to keep stable but for the most part I like the lighter equipment
Your math was w4ong
@@krone5 I corrected it in the pinned comment :)