Micro Four Thirds v Full Frame: The Photography Rabbit Hole Explained
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 вер 2024
- In this video I try to explain some of the key differences, and similarities, between micro four thirds and full frame cameras when it comes to exposure and depth of field.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @chrisbaitson
• Buy Me A Coffee:
www.buymeacoff...
• My Camera Gear:
www.amazon.co....
•Follow Me On Instagram:
/ chrispikz
• Buy my PRESETS here:
www.etsy.com/u...
• Buy My PRINTS here:
www.redbubble....
•About me:
My name is Chris and I am a landscape photographer from East Yorkshire focussing on coastal long exposures using my micro four thirds Olympus cameras.
My music is provided my Audiio, sign up below and use code SAVE70 to earn 70% off of your first 12 month subscription:
audiio.com/par...
#microfourthids #landscapephotography #cameras
Absolutely brilliant explanation Chris. I have the Em1 mkii with 12:40 40:150 plastic fantastic and 45 1.8 and absolutely love it.
Hey Chris,
I really enjoyed your video-it's great to see someone break down the differences between full-frame and Micro Four Thirds in a clear and accessible way. I’ve been diving into this topic myself lately, and there are a couple of things that stood out where I think the explanation might be a bit off (or at least, a little more nuanced). Hope you don’t mind me sharing!
*1.* You mentioned that sensor size doesn’t affect depth of field, but actually, it does. For the same field of view, aperture, and distance from the subject, full-frame will naturally give you a *shallower depth of field* than Micro Four Thirds. That’s why you had to stop down on the full-frame (f/5.6) compared to the M43 (f/2.8) to match the depth of field. So in practice, the sensor size definitely plays a role in how much background blur you can get!
*2.* When you said that aperture doesn’t impact light differently between the two systems, I think I get where you’re coming from in terms of exposure. *f/4 is f/4* when it comes to how much light hits the sensor. But the *full-frame sensor gathers more total light because it’s bigger*, which means it generally handles low light better (less noise, more dynamic range). So while the exposure might be the same, full-frame can still give you cleaner, better-quality images in certain conditions because it’s capturing more light overall.
*3.* I totally agree that you can get a similar field of view by using equivalent lenses on both systems (like 25mm on full-frame and 50mm on M43). But to really get the same *depth of field and bokeh*, you have to adjust the aperture, as you did in your example. Full-frame will still have the edge when it comes to getting that creamy background blur we all love, due to the larger sensor size.
Your video really breaks things down in a straightforward way, but I think if you add just a bit more about how sensor size influences depth of field and the overall light-gathering ability, it would give your viewers an even clearer picture of the differences between the two systems.
Keep up the awesome work-I’m definitely looking forward to more of your videos!
Cheers,
Jimmy
A good, easily understood explanation of the often misunderstood properties of lenses and formats. Always good to hear someone championing M43!
Just got into micro four thirds so bit of learning curve, but a lot of Advantages .
Once you nail it down it’s pretty simple. Hope the video helped.
There are advantages and disadvantages to every system, but there is also a lot of internet-lore out there that is complete non-sense. This was a great debunking video for one of those common misconceptions.
nice comparison. It would be nice if this comparison could also be made under difficult lighting conditions.
I can do that.
Wise words indeed Chris. As you do and say so well, get out in nature, enjoy its beauty, power, calm. Take a picture with what ever device you enjoy and if the image makes you feel good…what a wonderful day it has been. Anything else may be missing the point. Cheers to all 🙌
great vid man... even though i'm rather fed up with all the explanations and arguments, this was a pleasure to watch... I personally stand on the mft side but I see no benefit in endless comparisons... you are either a good... skilfull photographer or you are not... simple as that...
Very clearly set out explanation. Never heard it so well put! Thanks!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I have seen a lot of disinformation about this about the f stop differences between micro four thirds and full frame and your information is correct. I knew this before listening to your post and I am pleased you are clearing up a lot of misinformation on other aspects you are talking about too that I knew was misinformation before I listened to what you had to say. I did my research because people were contradicting each other.
Focal length is focal length and aperture is aperture, field of view is the only variant really in terms of composition. That's why my G9 is actual better in some low light scenarios than my Sony A7II, as the greater depth of field I get at the same aperture helps me lower the ISO. I literally got called crazy for that but it's simple math and practical application. And that's another thing that people ignore, camera processing power. The later FF camera sensors do perform better in low light, but honestly I compared my G9 to my relatively new A7C and there really isn't much difference which annoys some people when I say it but it's true when talking about real world application.
Great comparison. It would be nice to see this same comparison at dusk. It is also worth mentioning that sensor size plays an indirect role in depth of view specifically in regards to lens availability. An f1.1 lens on a full frame camera would require an f0.75 lens in micro 4/3rds at the same field of view to achieve the same depth of field. However, as a landscape photographer, this rarely matters but does explain why there are not many portrait photographers using m4/3rds cameras professionally.
Unless you take photos where you employ very narrow depth of field, micro four thirds has a lot of advantages, because you've got much less weight to carry. Comparing my Olympus 14-150 f/4-5.6 with my Canon EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6, the Olympus lens is a fraction of the size and weight, and essentially does the same job. I can carry a camera with the Olympus lens attached around all day, but I definitely couldn't with the Canon lens.
I can see how some portrait photographers want to use full frame, but for people who go out-and-about to find photographs, the smaller size and lighter weight of micro four thirds definitely gives a big edge in terms of practicality.
Chris, I am really enjoying your content. So straightforward and real. Not a bunch of pressure to get the latest and greatest and all the gear. You keep it simple, use what many would find to be accessible gear, and you bring back great images. I find that helpful, refreshing, and inspiring. Keep up the great work and don’t chase the algorithm.
I appreciate that! I've always tried to keep it grounded.
An excellent explanation, Chris! I use an OM-5 and some zooms and a few primes as well.
I am so glad you are showing us rather than just talking! I do get it, but then I get confused half way through aha
I would buy you a beer for addressing this if I could! I'm amazed at how many people claim to "know" how it works but don't understand photography physics nor are willing to test it, they just go off of what they've seen online. Something really interesting is a recent forum thread over on DPReview called "Micro Four Thirds for high depth of field" (can't link in YT comments... /sigh). This is not my post, and I'm still researching it, so grain of salt and all the other usual disclaimers... But, it goes over how diffraction impacts image quality at specific F-stops by specific Sony ff and Pany m43 sensors... Their testing shows that an A7R5 @ f16 resolves about the same as a G9ii at f8, due to diffraction! For those that want more depth of field, for things like landscapes, I found this very interesting. But, of course, if at the same f-stop, the higher res sensor is better, but not as much as we might think at F16. I need to research this more.
I've found with my MFT lenses that diffraction starts to creep in slightly sooner in terms of stopping down than it does with the FF lenses.
@@ChrisBaitson yeah, I usually try to keep it below f11 (usually f4-8 is what I’ve found as the sweet spot for most of my zooms) and use NDs instead of stopping down to much, but I have a few shot at f16+ that aren’t too bad considering.
You are an excellent teacher.
Wow, thank you!
Great video. Thanks a lot for making that point clear. Really impressed to see such a pearl of wisdom on youtube.
I think you could make it even better if you were making a distinction between quantity of light and intensity of light. To take your cake analogy, the intensity of light is the thickness of the icing, and that's the ISO. The quantity of light is the total weight of icing. You can put 1kg of icing on either cake, as long as you don't care about the thickness of the icing. With that said, the method to take images as similar as possible on two cameras is: use the same angle of view (apply the crop factor to the focal length), use the same aperture diameter (apply the crop factor to the f-number), use the same shutter speed, use the same exposure compensation, and use auto-ISO (otherwise, set the ISO to what it needs to be for neutral exposure, or apply the square of the crop factor to the ISO, for instance ISO 100 on the MFT and ISO 400 on FF). It seems like a minor difference with what you are doing, but if your rock was zooming by, fast, you'd see a difference in motion blur with different shutter speeds. Also, if you were shooting at night at cranking up the ISO, the image on the MFT would be a lot more noisy, for no good reason. In fact, by using the same shutter speed, and letting the ISO be what it needs to be, in addition to the same depth of field and same motion blur, the two images will also have about the same noise and same dynamic range.
Your DOF explanation was great but if it had been done indoors in low light it could have also demonstrated the fact that the "FF advantage" disappears when more depth of field is wanted. Eg an exposure of f4 at 800 iso on MFT would require f8 at 3200 iso on FF, resulting in the same amount of noise.
Great explanation.
Chris let me tell you with much appreciation that there is a way- the only way- to have the exact same result (in terms of light, field of view and compression) between the two systems.
This is the way: we set side by side m4/3 and ff. Let's say we have m4/3 with 50mm lens f1.8, s1/500, iso 200. Next to it we need the ff with 50mm lens at f1.8, s1/500 and iso200. Then in post production we have to crop the ff photo 2x resulting in a 4 times smaller photo. Now we have exactly the same result. Moreover if the ff has 4x mp than the m4/3 for example a 64mp vs a 16mp sensor then in the final result we also have the same pixel density.
The biggest misconception in photography is that there are equivalencies between different systems, but there are not. Because of the crop factor, smaller sensors try to compensate for the same angle of view with bigger sensors using wider angle lenses. And this will always always results in different depth of field. As already mentioned f1.8 will always be f1.8 and 50mm will always be 50mm no matter what the sensor size is. They are characteristics asigned to lenses by their physical dimensions.
It would be very reliefing for photographers if we stopped arguing for equivalencies. Different systems are just different windows to view through and capture/create images.
I agree with everything you said. I made the video due to previous comments from folks telling me that my chosen format cannot do what theirs can, when quite frankly it can.
f Stop it please😂😂 Gotta admit I hesitated seeing the title. I think you nailed it with a clear explanation and examples👍👍
😁
Great explanation Chris. One scenario that would, if I'm not mistaken, disagree with your closing statement is if I shot a Full frame 50mm 1.2 and tried to get equivalent M4/3 shot which would have to be shot on a 25mm sub F 1.0 lens, which Im not sure is available, If I am understating the physics correctly .
The Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 would have you back.
@@ChrisBaitson yeah, but then we're not talking native (perhaps pro) lenses anymore. And probably also MF only. Not saying they are bad or the system is bad (I use m43 myself), but I agree with the comment above that it would be good to also showcase the limits, eg., both lenses at f1.8. You will have the shallower DoF on FF. Whether that's an advantage or disadvantage completely depends on what you want to use it for. 🙂
I found that even for portraits (which is the pro-claimed FF playing field), less shallow DoF can be a real advantage: Whenever there is more than one person in the frame and they are not perfectly lined up in terms of distance from camera, you cannot use FF (or even m43) wide open anymore without having one of the faces blurred.
@@jonastruemper637 Try to find 1000/5.6 or 1200/6.3 for ful format. Btw you can adapt almost any lens to mft camera but not to full a format camera.
@@richardfink7666 no doubt, there are some lenses that are hard-to-impossible to get on FF as well. 🙂 I am not trying to imply that FF is better. One might say that FF has some characteristics on the wide end of the focal length spectrum that hard to get for m43 - while m43 has some unique characteristics on the long end. Hope that makes sense. 🙂
@@jonastruemper637 Hits the nail on the head!
Excellent explanaton of the aperture and focal length "issues" I would, however, like to see a video and your views about the much more critical and widely discussed issue of FF vs M4/3 low light capability and subsequent noise. I use APSC and there is a difference here, but how does this compare?
I have both systems. A nikon Z full frame with heavy lenses and an OM-5 with not so heavy lenses. My go-to cam is the OM-5. It's way more fun to shoot and is good enough for 90% of the things I shoot. My Nikon Z I only use when I require superb low light performance (like shooting my toddler in a low light setting with high shutter speed). Or when I'm shooting background-obliterated portraits.
Same here. Almost thinking to sell my Z7 but I like the colours and the Eye auto focus is more reliable…
But when travelling I take either my Em5iii or EM1iii
Fascinating
Chris, I've tried explaining this concept to other full-frame advocates on UA-cam. They just don't get it or refuse to believe it. I forwarded a link to your video. Maybe they will believe you!
Second point... in today's world, it remains very difficult to shrink a full frame kit to the size, weight and cost of M4/3. But now, software can be used to address the low light and bokeh limitations of M4/3 to get almost identical image quality. By opting for the smaller, lighter and less expensive M4/3 system and applying a bit of technology, it is relatively easy to get the best of both world's. The only limitation is bit depth, which is not a deal breaker for most of us.
Nice Job!
I have news for you, Sony has the A7C2 and R, it was difficult but they done it. No need for small sensors in big bodies anymore. The need to choose is over.
Sony wins handsdown with fullframe.
Oh.... they also have some ultra compact FF primes that might interest you.
@@brugj03 Right you are. So I thought I would construct the kit I use for wildlife, my common use case. Kit contains camera body (OM-1, A7Cii), Normal Lens (24-70 GMii, 12-40 Pro, both 2.8), Med. Tele (70-200 GM, 40-150 Pro, both 2.8), Long Tele (200-600 + 1.4x @ f/5.6-6.3, 100-400 @ f/5.0-6.3). I think the systems are somewhat comparable. Here is the comparison (data from DP Review for size, weight; B&H for cost)
Cost: Sony $9,850; OMS $5,200
Weight: Sony 4,569 grams; OMS 2,984 grams
Size: Sony 134 Cubic inches; OMS 100 cubic inches.
OMSystem is 53% cost, 65% weight, 75% size of the comparable Sony system. The good news is, we have options. Hope this helps. Can you construct a small Sony kit, of course. But, the larger sensor size will impact the absolute size of comparable lenses.
@@rudigerwolf9626 And the quality of high iso, depth of field an dynamic range.
Not to mention the insanely good ai AF which spots wildlife before you do.
There is also no need to pack that many crazy large zooms with sony, almost always one lens will do it.
Keeping things in balance greatly reduces weight and costs anyway.
You can even keep it smaller by using the insane sensor of the R and crop in with a much smaller and cheaper lens.
@@brugj03 I get it. You don’t like M4/3. No worries. Enjoy your Sony gear!
@@rudigerwolf9626 I do like m4/3, but i hate the frustrated take on FF vs M43 it`s ridiculous, because there tools for a different job.
I have Sony FF because of the magnificent wide angle lenses and FF.
Every job it`s tool, i say.
Very simple situation, but hugely over-complicated by retailers who led UA-camrs by their noses.
Do you need a brand new Range Rover or a Toyota Prius or a tiny Japanese 800cc K-car or an old junk American V8 truck?
There is no definite answer because it depends on what you wanna use that vehicle for.
We would all love a new Range Rover. But its actually not necessary for most of us.
The Prius is more practical for the masses, but most consumers would be ashamed of being seen owning one as they wont be seen as being car lovers.
A tiny Japanese Kei Car is superbly sensible for many, but again…it cannot help you to show off and appear knowledgeable and authoritative.
Many Americans would insist on using huge trucks in the city powered by huge old junk obsolete fuel-guzzling V8s. Again, they need to prove something.
So, does a consumer need FF or M4/3?
Dont be surprised, most consumers really need only a flagship smartphone’s camera + a few good apps.
Please, not another unfair debate. I am an OM System user coming from the ff Canon 5DMKII(welll, an old DSLR) and after a few years I just realize that the M4/3 system is just a tool fun to use and it is no doubt at all. You all talk about the size and portability but believe me the OM1 paired with a 300 mm f4 and a MC14 it’s not just easy to carry around in fact is a bit heavy than the R5 with a 100-500 zoom lens. Image quality, it’s just the last one on the table cameras on Dynamic range. Shooting at 800 ISO the image has a lot of noise, now you all saying “well the DXO, topaz bla bla bla” are excellent options to remove the noise but the results are just not the best one IMHO, they looks kinda weird, not very natural, indeed. Others photographer talk about the 300 mm, “wow, such an amazing and super sharp it is” and you have a 600 mm, amazing”. Yes, probably but even so, the DOF is an effective f8 and all the reach you gain with the crop sensor is actually for nothing because you need to get closer to your subject to achieve those “creamy and soft backgrounds” if you like them, of course. The m4/3 system is just a “super bright day photographic tool” above 800 ISO is just a cheap mobile phone style image, I think. The cost, it’s not cheap at all, the 300 mm is more than 2.200€, the 150-400/7.000€ that’s insane, am I right ? 20 mpx on 2024? 12 bits raw? please….
Best wishes from Spain,
Remus
If you're at 800 iso on MFT, you'd need to be at 3200 iso on FF to get the same depth of field as you'd have to close the aperture 2 stops. So there's often no advantage from using FF at all.
Great explanation, but the problem is, that you need f/0.9 on MFT to get the same look as f/1.8 on FF. And f/0.9 on MFT is really hard to find....
Venus Laowa and TTArtisan make several f0.95 lenses each. There are plenty out there to chose from. Brightin Star also make a bunch too.
Voigtlander makes a wonderful manual focus 42mm f0.95 MFT lens!
What “look” are you after? It is usually possible to change to a longer focal length and recompose, if you really want a narrow DOF.
If it’s light-gathering that is the limitation, then a larger sensor (of the same generation) will do better. Unless you are in a situation where you can stack frames, such as with many newer mFT cameras.
So it really comes down to different solutions.
@@boggisthecat By look I meant the depth of field. For me it is not a solution to change from 50mm to 100mm (FF), because that gives a completely different message in street photography. So it's always a compromise. That's all I wanted to say.
It's also a compromise to have to carry full frame lenses. MFT would be the ideal size for most people. If only they knew it!
Icing on cakes and green hats…. I’m good. 👍
Green is the best colour for a hat! And every cake needs icing. It’s good 👍🏻