Does better gear make a difference? Well yes, but with a whole bunch of asterisks. You might have certain limitations with lesser gear, but those limitations might be irrelevant depending on the conditions, or the type of scene, or you might be able to just work around them. You might only need the better gear in edge cases where you're really running against those limitations.
@@Knowbody42 Agree completely. Better gear means more possibilities, definitely. But we live in a time and age when professional photography in the best conditions can be done with a phone, so if the best gear is actually hindering your capability of taking the shot, well then it's not the best gear. When you get to proper cameras, it's mostly about what you prefer, if I had to bring around 2Kg of gear just for hiking or taking pictures of my friends I'd probably just forget about it, some other people might think that if they can't shoot nighttime with a fast shutter they'd rather not buy the gear. Either is fine, as long as you know what you're buying.
I got rid of my full frame gear and went Olympus micro 4/3rd, and I don’t have a sore back anymore. Image quality wise, I can’t tell the difference and neither can my customers.
I entered a photo contest and came in dead last. I complained and told them to look at the sharpness and dynamic range of my photos. Mine were the best in that regard, no contest! The judges mentioned composition, light, mood and other artsy nonsense. Obviously the judges haven't been paying close enough attention to the camera manufacturer's ads.
and thats the thing, specs and hardware can be as high as you want. If there is no artistic input its a shitty photo. It should be the photographers and videographers taking the image, not the hardware.
I hate to burst your bubble, but that "arty nonsense" is what distinguishes "holiday snaps" from "photographic art." For example, a sharp and full-dynamic-range snap of your cat's head In The Exact Center of The Image Frame just won't cut it. Ask one of the judges how to improve the head shot of Fluffy and you'll actually learn something. (Cheaper than Art class.;)
Only people who are interested in photography (and gear) ask themselves what equipment and techniques are used, not then? But mostly if a photo is that good someone would hang it wall-size in a public place, the gear is unimportant. The emotion it brings all the more.
I’m not surprised at the result. I’m an amateur photographer who uses a full frame Canon 5D Mk III DSLR, and increasingly a Canon G1X Mk II compact, which has a sensor about the same size as micro 4/3, for walking and travel. Portability is a major factor, and a full frame DSLR is heavy when you’re carrying it round all day. At my photography club I’ve been just as successful in competitions with photos taken on the compact as those taken on the DSLR.
Having owned both a 6D (full frame) and 80D together, I dismissed MFT ever since I heard about it--which was maybe 5 years ago when I saw an E-M1 ad. When I researched it and saw the size of the sensor I laughed. After seeing photos on line for awhile, and having lugged my 6D and 2 L lenses on a 3 day tip to Europe, I decided to rent a E-M5 mkII and a Lumix 12-35mm 2.8 on a trip to Utah. One week after my return I bought my own E-M5mkii, Olympus 12-40 2.8 and Lumix 24-100 2.8. The sharpness and colors can't be beat. All of my Canon equipment is being packed this week and shipped off to KEH. Oh and my backpack got much, much lighter.
I pick up my Canon 5D Mark II from time to time and think to myself "I thought this was a run-and-gun camera?" I love my GH5, but goof with my 5D once in a blue moon because sensor size makes a difference when doing sunset timelapses :)
@@PedroDVC Yes I am loving it. My original post was mistyped though: It was a 3 week trip--and 4 to 6 miles of city walking each day. Now since DXO Photolabs 4 came out with their Deep Prime NR it's even better: I can shoot 25,600 with no issues.
My first E-M5 got me more serious about using M43 over my Canon system. I bought the E-M5 II when it came out, and that kind of cemented the deal. By the time I sold my 6D and Canon system, I also had the Pen-F. I was getting the same quality 99% of the time. With a modern FF system, you can probably pay less attention to getting things technically correct, since you have more exposure latitude than on M43. But that also lets people get lazy... and UA-cam is mostly full of those being lazy. Any time you see a smartphone beating a FF DSLR or mirrorless, that doesn't tell you about the phone so much as the user didn't understand their camera.
@@DaveHaynie Good point! There are ways to overcome pretty much every obstacle. All of my pictures are travel and family for which the m43 does just brilliantly.
It’s amazing how many people like to make Strawman arguments to justify the system they use. I doubt that many users of fullframe cameras chose fullframe because it gives them an advantage when printing large. They more likely chose it because it suits their needs in terms of noise and dynamic range and ability to recover shadows and highlights when processing the raw file and sometimes because of choice of lenses or getting a shallow depth of field or autofocus capabilities, etc. And people who chose M43 probably didn’t choose M43 because it gives them an advantage when printing large either. They probably chose M43 because they prefer smaller/lighter lenses and bodies or because of the superior IBIS or cheaper lenses or some other unique features that the M43 cameras have.
You have nailed the reasonings. I bought a m43 camera for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I am mainly interested in street photography and wanted to use tele zoom lens. Full frame camera with massive 70-200 does not make sense for street photography but m43 camera with 35-100 lens ( FF equivalent of 70-100) gives me a nice manageable kit.
Thanks for this video. I'm in photography from more than 30 years now (was a wedding one) and i've switched in µ4/3 3 years ago, when the system seemed complete for a pro needs with pro bodies and lenses (EM1 and the Zuiko f:2.8 triade). In fact, even if 24x36 is technicaly superior in several points, there is a lot of wonderfull innovations founded only in this system (live programs, 4K photo, focus stacking...) and I found this system sufficient for 95% of my needs and even 100% with a little care and adaptation! In all cases much more valuable than my old argentic bodies wich gave me fantastic results since the 80's... But in this time we were looking at photos on real paper, not pixel peeping! And "real" wedding photographers were in 6x6... The real advantage of µ4/3 is polyvalence: it can be as small as a pocketable GM1 & 12-32 (or 20:1.7), tiny like an EM10 & 9-18 or 14-150, or Pro like an GX9 or EM1-II with grip & 12-100mm or 40-150:2.8... That's the only system who can offer such a diversity to photographers and I do love that!
Actually, the Olympus is in this instance less than 20mp as it has been set to 3x2 therefore cropping a load off the top and bottom, probably coming out at around 18Mp for print. Which means the difference (or lack of) is even more remarkable
I spent almost 10 years with a Nikon D700 as my "primary" camera and a Nikon 7100 as my easy carry and backup camera. When I needed to replace the 7100, I looked at the majority of my best prints and realized they were from the 7100. The best camera we own is most often the one we will actually carry and use. I replaced the 7100 with an Oly OM-D EM5 mark II. Better IQ than the 7100 and fexible enough to replace the D700 in the studio. I will keep the Nikon for low light with movement. For all else the Oly is the ticket.
30 likes on this comment? changing the aspect ratio doesn't make any difference whatsoever. It will still be the same dpi. If u take a printed photo and cut a strip off the top and bottom does it change the quality of what's left?
I have also made these comparisons several times. It's absolutely true: Both on the iMac 27" with the fantastic 5K monitor or directly on a enlargement from the printing studio, differences - especially with different subjects - are kind of difficult or impossible to detect. But in my opinion, this is not the criterion in most cases, unless someone starts to deal with photography from scratch and makes his (valuable!) considerations because of the weight and the money. An experienced NIKON, CANON or even LEICA photographer will hardly change from full format to 4/3rd because of supposed sharpness problems. Such do simply not exist! Because aforementioned cameras are certainly not worse - only heavier and more expensive - unfortunately! Only, and this IS an argument - in my age (75) one has visibly trouble to drag a D850 or even D5 or D6 together with the matching best-seller lenses 2.8/24-70 and 2.8/70-200 mm for hours on a trip or in the city. However, completely different criteria definitely count more: Habit, the safe, familiar handling, the fantastic cropping possibilities, contrast range, noise behavior, especially from 1600 ISO and higher - or their ISO performance in general and - already purchased lenses! These are indeed far more important for these people! I found for myself an affordable solution: I searched and found a barely 3-year-old, beautiful OLYMPUS-2nd-hand body: The OLYMPUS PEN-F plus a 21mm Voigtländer wide angle! This couple ist simply a dream for city- and landscape photography! And with a little bit of luck - one can find it for less than 1'000.- €. Best regards to all! Rolf Oehen, Switzerland
I’m not a professional and don’t do large prints. I switched from FF to APSC and now back to FF. I do mostly portrait and shots of my family. The full frame gives me a certain look that I could not replicate on my APSC, maybe depth of field? Regardless, for me... there was a noticeable difference, and I’m young enough that the weight does not bug me too much. Thanks for the video!
Thanks for comparing the two side-by-side in prints. It truly shows the realities of m4/3's with no true distinction between the quality. This was a great lesson for those looking for a camera. I know it sold me on what I'm getting.
I love how you combined a technical discussion with an artistic semi-tutorial, plus a small introduction to Southend-on-Sea. That's exactly the type of mix to implement against potentially boring videos. Like!
Thanks for this, great work. Went from canon to panasonic G85 two years ago and more recently GH5 as well and am blown away by their image quality and overall superiority. Very clever capable compact cameras.
@@theschoolofphotography My quesion would be if we take the canonr3 and the gh6 which 2 has arund the same megapixels, than take the pana 50-200 2-8-4 and canon rf 100-400 5.6-8 same wight similar size, same aparature. 2s crop, same funckiioning lense, because of still the ff sensor, would you be able to get the same detailed quality shots of you would have the same motors in the lenses and same quality kinda like bodies?
Micro four thirds is awesome because you can get those crazy telephotos plus the 2x crop factor so you can get equivalent to 200-600 millimeters for 600 bucks but try getting something like that on full frame and you're not gonna be able to pay your bills.
Great video,thanks. Now factor in that most people are not even shooting for print. They are shooting photos that get compressed, resized and put on websites and social media that are being viewed on mobile devices and the differences between the two becomes even more negligible....
@@meatbyproducts I cant remember who tried out both full frame and crop sensor Nikons!D500 and D750 for a photo comparison!the D500 had more details sometimes since a nice amount of pixels was cramped into a smaller area but smoother pictures overall!
@@bernhardtsen74 different generation of cameras. The D500 and D850 would be a better comparison. I carry one of each. The D500:shoots fast the D850 has the big senor with more information and captures more.
I have both of these cameras, and the only time I see a difference that matters is in low light. No matter how you slice it, the Canon is better in that situation. That said, I use the Olympus the most because it's smaller, lighter, and generally easier to carry. I love them both. Also, this may matter to some, Canon skin colors are still unrivaled. That doesn't mean Olympus is bad, but Canon is king in the skin color department, and not just when compared to Olympus.
The Serial Hobbyist Girl And today's mirrorless FF and aps-c are so compact that the argument of using m4/3 because of size is irrelevant. My a6000 is smaller than many m4/3 cameras.
@@okamisanwa the bodies are mainly the same size for m4/3, apsc and ff, but the lenses differ a lot. The smaller, lighter lenses usually are what you get m4/3 for. :)
I can agree on that. But even there you have some really small and compact lenses for aps-c and full frame. It depends on what you need. Still, a f/1.8 lens for m4/3 would not even get close to the quality of an equivalent lens on a full frame. The field of view, depth of field, iso etc. But it totally depends on what you need, some people are even fine with mobile cameras.
Richie You're so wrong, sensor size DOES NOT determine the depth of field. What determines this is the distance between the subject and the camera. The reason why smaller sensors don't seem to have a shallow depth of field is because unlike full frame sensors, they force you to move backwards to capture the whole scene which then narrows the depth of field.
Hi SHG, I gather that, if you want to talk about skin tones, you are shooting JPEG? Because a raw shooter can totally control that sort of thing, irrespective of camera. cheers
I have done a similar test (not printed, but on a 27" calibrated monitor) with an Olympus E5 and a Canon 5D (some would call it "Mark 1"). Both approximately 12-13 megapixels and ... mostly the Olympus got more fine detail in foliage. Both lenses were used at their optimal aperture (f/6.3 for the Zuiko and f/9 for the Canon). The main difference is the depth of field: a full frame will always have a shallower DOF. To prove that I took a 50mm Zuiko (from my OM-2n) and put it on both camera's to photograph the same object. You might suspect a shallower DOF on the Olympus since 50mm converts to 100, but the distance is also doubled and because the DOF is decreased when the distance increases, the DOF is even shallower! And... This is a very interesting video, Marc.
@@dzevadbayraktar322 You can always stop down your lens for more DOF, whatever camera you're using. FF gives you the choice to go with very shallow DOF if you want to.
I am absolutely sure that both cameras perform to level beyond the need of the average photographer including the ' pros ', but surely the only way to properly compare them would have been to shoot the same subject at the same FOV at optimal aperture. Good show BTW, thanks.
Yes that would be a more technical test because the subject matter might play into the perception of sharpness - and so might the aperture and lens used. I'm interested to know if the lens resolution can beat the megapixels or vice versa. It's agood real life illustration though that the difference is likely minimal.
Very enjoyable video. I owned an Omlympus EM1 mark II for about 17 months and have to say it was a fantastic bit of kit, easily comparable to my Nikon D500. In fact, it was a lot more versatile for wildlife photography than my D500. I often took almost identical shots with both cameras and most of the time could not tell them apart. The only drawback with the EM1.2 was it's performance in lower light. I swapped both cameras for a Sony A7III and A7II system and there is a big difference in the quality of my images when shooting in low light, which is most of the time where I live. My perfect camera would be a full frame EM1 mark II.
pete draper I have done essentially the Same as you regarding camera choices. I shot commercial and residential real estate with my em1ii and pro set of Olympus lenses for around 2 years. The camera is absolutely a pleasure to use and delivered excellent results. The fast frame rate was especially useful in photographing birds and a 2.8 aperture from 14-300mm equip is phenomenal. I eventually decided to go to an A7Rii for the same reasons- better low light while also delivering higher resolution. There are some trade-offs such as frame rate and lens size/cost but I believe the A7R’s are about the closest thing currently out there to the em1ii. 👍👍
Pete...miss seeing your images and updates in the Oly groups! That A7III...how's that been for shooting birds in flight in comparison to the em1.2? I'm just curious as for the money, it looks like a great all around camera.
@@markwashburn1485 Hi Mark, thanks a lot. The A7III is really good for BIF when combined with the Sony 100 - 400mm G Master. It's lightweight, too. I always reckoned my EM1.2 was very close to my D500 for BIF and the A7III is perhaps slightly better than the EM1.2. I am really pleased with it: moving to FF was the right choice for me.
In my experience, the difference between medium format, full-frame, APS-C, M4/3 is in low light performance, depth of field, and small detail differences of distance objects (traffic cones on a distant road, rock detail off on a distant cliffside).
This video helped me to lift up my spirit! Thank you! I have the Nikon D7100 and by looking at the photos taken by a friend of mine with the Nikon D 810 I've being feeling hopeless. My motto is that I will never spend the big bucks on a full frame camera until the day I really have and understanding of the technical aspects of my cropped frame camera. Thank you again!
Yeah, the apples were as good as the oranges here ;-) I shoot with m4/3, but I would have liked to have seen shots of the same subjects, with some movement/detail in the photos to visually differentiate the two -- and some shots in low light.
@@GregConquest everyone knows that a difference can be made, including m4/3 shooters. Personally, I like the organic aspect of film and any digital camera + lens combination that succeeds in giving me the same feel. I have satisfaction working with natural light only. I can find use of m4/3 in macro and product photography (where an FF needs special methods-tricks), but also street photography. It works good for portraits, but you need tricks as longer focal or far away backgrounds. It would be too bad for such a well developed technology to disappear.
I believe size of the sensor does not matter for most of the time. There are certainly situations when bigger is better: if you want to achieve extreme background blur and in low light situations when you can afford to trade more background blur for less noise. But on the other hand Panasonic G80 has dual IS that allows to use longer exposure times for hand held static pictures. Well you can use quite extreme manual f0.95 lens or metaboost adaptors, but i don't want to buy lenses with limited use. When it comes to size, I started with Panasonic GF1 and 20mm/f1.7 lens. It's small, but it does not handle well with heavier lenses (like over 250 grams) and I found out that beefy grip is quite good. I ended with G80 using 12-60/f3.5-5.6 or 12-35/f2.8 lens most of the time and Oly 45mm/f1.8 or Pan 20mm/f1.8 for some situations. 12-60 is more universal and does not suffer from flares that much, 12-35 is better for indoors and low light situations like overcast winter days. It's not extremely small or lightweight setup, but I remember one friend traveling with 3-8kg of photo related stuff (camera, lenses, tripod) in backpack. For some reason, I enjoyed GF1 most and I believe my best photos are from that camera, because it's lightweight and I enjoyed to carry it in the city and take pictures for fun. Sometimes it's good to have camera when there something unusual (like light after brief evening storms etc.)
At work, I run a camera club and we decided to put some of the winners as full wall pictures i.e. 3m X 2m. It's fair to say we're were no experts and the pictures were roughly 3MB to 8MB. One picture was from a reasonable (but NOT top notch) camera phone, two were from canon SX point 1/2.3 and shoots. I was blown away by the quality as they were blown up to such a size. What I noticed - if the size of the picture is life size e.g. a landscape size then your eyes simply fill in the gaps. If however you make the picture too big, the your eyes switch off and look at the gaps. I have to write this as pixel peeping is not what most people judge - only fellow photographers. They will see the forest full of blue bells.
As someone who uses micro 43 for pro work as well as for photos at home its good to see the micro 43 prints doing so well..am I surprised? Perhaps a little but then again I have always been impressed with the IQ from these cameras so thanks for taking the time to create such an interesting video...
@@theschoolofphotography I have a question about the printer. I currently use a Canon bubble jet printer, a Pixma MP237 with good enough quality printouts for my personal photos. I have been using it for around 5 years now and I'm planning to buy a new one. It seems that the Epson photo printer with 6 color cartridges has better quality printouts but what concerns me is that it uses print heads that are permanently attached to the printer while the Canon uses print heads that are attached to the removable cartridges. Now whenever the print heads of my Canon printer get dirty and clogged, I simply remove the cartridges and clean the print heads with moist cotton balls. With Epson's fixed print heads, I cannot do that unless I dismantle the printer or take it to the repair shop. So, should I buy the Epson or stick with the Canon brand for my new printer? Also, can you recommend a better printer with removable print heads than a Canon? Thank you so much.
Great video again. The conclusion of all the videos I have watched on FF v APSc and MFTs is that a FF is only worth it if you shoot a lot in low light with a super wide aperture.
and even then m43 would be better than ff if you were shooting low light still life. M43 image stabilization makes anything else look like a joke haha. Handheld 4 second exposures are possibly on an em1 mark 2
Marc I saw a Lake District landscape in a local (and very accomplished) printers at the same size as your comparison prints. This was about 13 years ago. I was stunned and remarked Wow! that must have been taken on a large-format camera (I meant greater than 35mm full-frame). His reply? "Actually it was taken on a 3 megapixel pocket camera". Seeing the skeptical look on my face, he assured me it was so and said that the interpolation sophistication and other technical wizardry of his Canon laser-scan printers eliminated colour fringing, noise/grain, distortion etc, etc, etc. (I'd just spent a very, significant sum on my first dslr outfit and so wobbled home suffering from PTSD 8-) Your service and presentation are top-notch Marc, thanks very much.
So, you're talking 'in-printer' image correction instead of in-camera image correction? Should beginners like myself not worry about researching and getting the best camera gear (for their budget) themselves, but worry about how to find the best printers firm instead? (any tips welcome!)
@@timonsolus The best camera is the one you've got with you. It seems to me that any so-called amateur dslr or mirrorless camera with any kind of sensor is over qualified in providing stunning results - the rest is just marketing blather. Choose the camera you really like and which has a range of sensibly priced lenses and forget pixel-peeping, the end product is all that matters and the journey to it. btw my £250 Chinese phone can do things even the MOST expensive cameras can't and the top-end ones are capable of what seems like magic. Mobile phone technologists started from scratch unhindered by what's gone before in designing photographic capabilities and image capture. Hopefully Nikon, Canon, Sony etc are working overtime to catch up. I'd say there are few in the extremely competitive printing world who can afford to lag behind in updating their services with the very latest equipment. Ahh! Sometimes though I DO miss my darkroom and the fascination of an image forming gradually upon paper in the developer, another type of magic altogether 8-)
A new full frame is better at low light than a new micro four thirds. A micro four thirds is better for travelling (either long hikes or travelling with longer lenses with carry-on at the airport). Also the aspect ratio varies. I prefer the 4:3 shape, it is more pleasing in my opinion (yes you can crop, or set non-native aspect ratio), you see this ratio in several medium format cameras as well. The third thing is the 'photographic experience'; It can be the best image making device on earth, but if you do not enjoy the process, then it is not the camera for you. If you really enjoy using canon, then canon is the brand for you, however, if you hate using the canon system, then don't use it. It is the experience you have, the interactions between you, the camera and the subject that determine the final result. I believe most modern cameras are suitable for most things (there are exceptions), so explore a little if you can before you buy...maybe even hire a few systems for a few days and test them out. Find the pros and cons in your own case. Maybe full frame is too heavy, maybe you mainly shoot low light events, maybe you focus heavily towards the super shallow medium format DoF look? There might be a cost issue to consider? A modern camera will last you a long time (barring disaster) and most made today are suitable for all but the most demanding user in specific situations. So, know the differences. Don't expect to shoot sports with medium format, don't expect a low light marvel from a micro four thirds, don't expect to carry several full frame long lenses on a long hike. You may end up with a couple of systems? If you have the cash then no worries, if cash is tight you may need to compromise on a system that nearly does everything.
Even more: no-one cares if the photo is sharp! (Take an expensive 50 megapixel FF and use it without a tripod and it would instantly be degraded to a 10 megapixel)
yep, talk about sharp edges bs to moriyama :-) photograpy's big money is in fashion / luxery product ads today, so, this idiocy about the need for your pix to be extra sharp all the time is mostly influenced by criterias normally for people who work with 20k gear all the time. camera/lenses manufacturers are just happy to play this game trying to sell to hoi poloi lambourgines even if the crowd needs estate wagons as they stay on insterstate 95% of the time... so funny to see dozens of folks who paid 3-5k for their top notch cameras/lenses and all they they show to the world is FB photos seen on 5" screens...
Well one thing to note is that when you are printing larger, you don't really need higher resolution than what the Micro 4/3 has because the viewer is going to be standing further back to view the image. I also wonder if the DPI even matches the lower end amount of pixels.
Since digital photography has brought the craft of making photographs to so many more people, more and more photographs are being consumed by the person that took the photo rather than put into print form and consumed by a general audience. As this has occurred, more and more of the appreciation or approval of images comes at the point of editing/developing the image on the photographer's own screens, rather than at the print stage. Indeed, few photos, even those that are technically very good, ever make it to print but are simply viewed and enjoyed by the photographer. In this light, it makes sense that the photographer's own view of their work is their primary source informing them and giving them a means of enjoying the images they craft. Thus it's understandable that for more and more people, their own views of their own images on large backlit computer screens, are where they make their first impressions of their work. I understand this is the way it is for many and it's why many may feel the difference in quality at 100% on a large monitor is significant enough to warrant their using a camera and sensor to produce images that, in reality, could not be distinguished from those taken with equal skill with a smaller sensor camera. When I'm involved shooting high speed action/sports in poor light, I recognize the challenges I will have with my E-M1 mark II bodies vs my buddies using Sony A9 and Canon 1DxII bodies and capable lenses. I can compete, but it's not without some effort on my part and where we might only need to obtain a dozen really good images, I'll have to get my dozen from a sometimes smaller range of keepers vs what they might have to pick from. But at the end of the day, I'm still fresh and not tired from carrying around 500/4 and 600/4 full frame lenses! And I can sometimes get into situations with my smaller kit they simply cannot get to. It's a compromise I've learned to deal with and even take advantage of when I can. Not everyone would want to. I understand. I appreciate your doing this comparison because I can use this to help people who are not really clear on their needs to understand what might be the main motivating factor for them. If it's misplaced fear that their images won't be good enough for print, then this may give them some confidence that sensor size alone is not going to be the pervading obstacle to getting good prints.
I 'm also a pro-photographer , specialized in wildlife pictures around the world ! I use 1 Olympus OM-D M5 stabilized with a lot of Canon vintage FD lens ( 400mm, 300mm, 75-200mm, 85-250mm ) and also smaller Canon EF lens ( 80-200mm, 35-70mm ) + 2 Lumix GH2 with these lens or for filming with Lumix 100-300 Ois (stabilized ) . The picture ratio is exceptional with these cameras : the Four Thirds sensor format used in MFT cameras is equivalent to a 2.0 crop factor when compared to a 35 mm film (full frame) camera. This means that the field of view of an MFT lens is the same as a full frame lens with twice the focal length : 200mm=400mm . I use also a Pentax K-5 ii for the full format with Sigma 120-400mm Apo ( no crop factor ) The results are the way you concluded , with cheaper lens and better handling cameras !
I'm grateful for the video and am not surprised by the results. If you have time, it would be interesting to see a similar comparison in low light or ultra high contrast scenes. Thanks again.
I use the Olympus OMD EM-1 Mk1 camera, and I can honestly say I cannot tell the difference between images taken on Full frame or Micro 4:3 sensors when printing up to A3+ after that I found you do get some falling off on the edges of the image, love the vlog and all the information that you give us, thanks
With total respect, a hobbyist/enthusiast photographer at the top of his game can present a print taken on a DSLR and Micro four thirds of the same image up to a certain size say A3, and you would have to have the eyesight of a hawk to tell which image was taken on what camera, even a professional cannot make the call, and that is not my opinion that is a fact,
Dear immortal, why did you buy an A7RII if sharpness is irrelevant? Perhaps you thought detail and sharpness are unrelated? Not so. The rest of your comment exaggerates things. My EM5II has more dynamic range than a 5DII. In low light with my 1.4 prime I can shoot much slower shutter speeds than a full frame with a 1.4 prime, so I end up with *more* total light on the image and *less * noise and *more* shadow detail. In other situations the tables are turned. So it is not a case of one being better all the time. So, the differences, small as they are, are conditional.
Now now. It's painfully obverse that anyone who goes through so much equipment is struggling. Never mind the fact that the M4/3 was handicapped by being cropped. @@tnargs57
Honestly didn't expect the difference to be visible. I checked the linear resolution (horizontally) of both sensors, and the difference is not that big. The Canon has about 1.3x more linear resolution than the Olympus. I would expect more of a visible difference if there was a 2x difference in linear resolution, which would necessitate comparing an 80MP camera to the Olympus. At that point, that's medium format, not full-frame. And the difference would be noticeable only with a big print of a subject with lots of details to look at, like a panoramic view of a city, where it's fun to look up close. A M43 camera certainly can create amazing high quality panoramas, tho. The only time it would matter is if you can only use one shot. However, I wouldn't think megapixels are the advantage of full-frame. I don't own a M43 camera, but I do think they are really cool, just stating. I shoot full-frame because of low light/fast speed. I sometimes have to take shots in dark theatres of fast moving subjects (think Cirque du Soleil kinda stuff), using fairly high ISOs and fast lenses. I shoot with a Sony A7RIII. With that sensor, not only can I shoot a bit less narrow and crop in post to make it easier to follow the action, but I can underexpose on purpose so that stage lights don't make people's skin blow up and then push it in post to make more details appear from the dark. It's for that kind of shots I shoot full-frame. Not everyone needs that, but that's a compelling reason.
For that kind of photographs, FF is a no-brainer. A friend of mine shoots live bands and switched to FF because of that... especially because he insist publishing in colour. I think grain or noise does not have that impact on b/w photos.
thanks for the video, completely takes us away from the pixel-peepers gearhead videos we see all the time, well done for showing that there is no tangible difference as that print size.
Great video, as always. I must say, from someone who works in marketing and prints on a large scale quite frequently, at the larger sizes the image quality doesn't really matter as much. When you print on a small scale, you might want something that's 300 dpi or more. On the larger scales, you could print at 100 dpi or less and not be able to tell the difference.
I have an image taken at Southwold harbour that someone was totally convinced must have been taken on a medium format camera because of the detail in the shot, It was actually taken with my little Canon M5 (24mp APS=C)
I work with similar printers and am not surprised by this test. You can get away with quite a lot with digital cameras these days. I reckon you would notice more of a difference if you printed at a larger size.
rarely print photos, my printer is only A4, I had an A3, but it died. Guess a 10 metre print could tell the difference, but not many printers that can do that size :)
Ummm, It seems there is a lack of understanding how printing works and how easy it is to upscale an image with no resolution loss. I can take a small Instax photo and scan it into my computer at 1200dpi with no loss of resolution. In fact it actually gained resolution. Then a 20” x 30” photo can be printed of it. An Instax photo is only 2” x 3” in size. Now that is just scanned at a high resolution at HOME. Now take this process and bring it into print lab with better scanners. You get the picture(pun completely intended) now?
Thank You for this video. I use a micro 4/3rds camera to do underwater photography and have concluded from your video and my experience that the lens makes the most difference.
Very interesting, thank you. I’m a Fuji user so in the middle, but I looked long and hard before investing in a new camera system and in the end it was between Olympus and Fuji
This has been the most astonishing priceless proff of how the full-frame v/s the 4/3 works. For me, optics must be the ultimate word un photography. THANKS
BTW I've done some great night time shots with my G7 and I've seen others take great night shots. It's all about the settings people not just your ISO.
From someone who really appreciates the build of Olympus Pro, I've been on the fence for years in a quest to replace my D7000 (of which I've only been marginally satisfied) and this has answered ALOT of internal questions. Though I still have uncertainties with low light performance of Olympus as it is one of my top 3 needs in an upgrade (fps and write speed being the other 2), this test puts to rest issues of resolution and micro 4/3's. Thank you.
The School of Photography As a footnote, there’s just no getting around the stellar low light, high ISO performance of high end Nikon bodies... this is tough. I’m actually considering the D6 as a last hurrah before committing full fledged to a performance mirrorless in the future (Leica SL2, Panasonic, etc...) at some other time in the future. What Olympus offers that is very important: non subscription raw image editor- an extremely important point to me!
@@kenmunozatmmrrailroad6853 Hi Ken, I've been dealing with the issue of the low light performance especially while I'm usually photographing night time events. Coming from a Nikon d7100 the m4/3 seems too of a compromise. Last year I found the limit of the crop sensor too. Had a fast f.1.8 prime with the crop but the dance event was in an almost dark tent in middle of a summer night. A colleague of mine had a FF Nikon brought in with a f2.8 zoom and the results were stunning compared to mine. In that situation the m4/3 would have been even worse. I'd like to switch to a lighter or similar system tho. Be a ninja, thats alot easier with the smaller sensor cameras. Maybe a Sony FF and a legacy prime?
@@kenmunozatmmrrailroad6853 have you considered the Pentax k-mount system? They have small sharp fast primes, similar or better lowlight performance compared to Nikon and quite nice IBIS in every SLR. Did a pixel peep comparison between a canon FF (with a wideangle zoom) and a Pentax k30 with a wide sigma prime. The Pentax had more detail due the advantage mentioned before
Wow finally we see print IQ with m43rds. Thank you for doing this. I knew, since I own that same kit with lens that looks like 12-40 f2.8 which btw isn’t pro glass. Interesting. Kill that myth thanks again. Oh for the commenter who said what he also looks in a camera is evf quality is one of the biggest deciding factors in purchasing. One of the reasons I switched to the Om1. You can’t make a great photograph if you can’t see clearly what you’re taking a picture of ❤❤
U r right Olympus camera is a beast ; the only area when It cannot compete with a full frame is when u will need to freeze any movement -street photography at the early evening and u need to push that iso in order to compensate for a faster shutter speed while you want to keep everything in focus let’s say f/8 -
I have just moved from using the Nikon D6 and D850 to Olympus OM-1 . I did it because of getting older and wanted less weight to carry around. I was very interested in this video. Thank you.
Great comparison. As an m4/3 shooter, I'm not going to boast too much. But also note that the Olympus is further disadvantaged because when you shoot 3:2, it's using less than 20 megapixels. I will agree that if you included low light in the tests, the FF will look better. But it's not as if low light on m4/3 is unusable and to be avoided.
Seriously.. the Canon should have been put into 4:3 mode instead! If you're shooting handheld still images in low light, the Olympus beats the Canon hands down. On a tripod or with fast motion in low light, the Canon wins every time.
Great video, it is so that I too have both these cameras ... :)))) And I found myself to use the Olympus more often because of the size and the weight. It is just amazing. Also I feel that a lot it has to do with the lenses you used. Olympus has a first class glass ...
I am thinking of splitting the difference between M43 and FF by getting the much acclaimed Fuji XT3 with APS-C sensor. Great reviews and with the new sensor it seems like the way to go
Hi Marc: I really enjoyed your video. I have been shooting professionally with the Olympus OMD E-M1 MkII for about 8 months now, after years of full frame Nikon DSLR gear and APS-C Fuji mirrorless gear. I shoot editorial stock images and have licensed images from all three of the formats, (FX, DX, & M4/3s). I was not surprised by your results as I have been very happy with the image quality of the Olympus in good light. As some others have posted, that little sensor does struggle a bit in low light conditions. I can get reasonably clean images up to about 1250 ISO that I have no problem licensing to clients. I'll be venturing into the FX mirrorless realm for low light work in the future. But to be honest, probably 90% of what I shoot, that Olympus is up to the task.
Recently got the same camera, have a few bridge cameras that are in the same weight bracket, looked at FF cameras and the weight was like not fun using it all day. Not a pro photographer, but as I also like macro, figured a heavy camera might not be the smartest move, will be getting the 60mm macro lens soon. Not tried much of the way of night shots and so picked a camera for day time use :)
Last week I took some outdoor portrait photos for a real estate agent. I mixed and matched my Panasonic GH5 and my Canon 5D Mark III. Her favourite pics were from the Canon - although she didn't know that. Why did she like the Canon? Because even with a Panasonic Leica 42.5 f1.2, I couldn't get the same subject isolation in the same environment. This is the only weakness of m43 for stills IMHO. For studio work and even for events, I prefer to use the Panasonic...
I think when a camera can take fantastic photos any improvements are going to be minuscule. It's like eating a great Sunday roast. Gordon ramsay isn't going to be able to make it taste substantially better. Diminishing returns and that.
This might be the best video I have watched all year. Brilliant. I am a Full Frame shooter, why??? Marketing and forums! Over the past few years I have noticed that when I challenge myself to determine which system is used to shoot which image (Flickr Explore) I simply cannot do it, and I am usually wrong.
The m4/3 is actually 17.8 MP round up to tenths when you change from 4:3 to 3:2 aspect ratio. 20.4MP is in the native 4:3 ratio. I myself switched from FF and DX nIkon to Panasonic m4/3 and printed 16x20" of the same shot on all 3 sensor sizes, at that size I saw to difference in the print so I use m4/3 now. I would like to see what a 1 meter print would be like of a landscape taken by both cameras to see if it looks significantly different. I would expect maybe a little more detail in the higher MP print but likely not enough to tell unless very close.
The detail you will see, is very dependent of the resolution (not the sharpness) of the lens used. Zuiko's are razor-sharp. I don't know about Leica from practical experience, but they have a legendary history, Like Zeiss and Schneider. If a FT has 20 MP, the FF should at least have 40 MP to see a noticeable difference. The lens of the FF should also have a resolving power 4x of the FT lens (also in the edges). When using a small aperture, diffraction sets in at a certain diameter, so FT at f/8 is slightly diffracted but FF at f/16 equally so. Both photo's will have the exact same DOF if the FOV is equal (thus i.e. using a 25mm on FT and 50mm on FF).
I didn’t look at all the comments but the one thing I see missing is cropping. If you are a cropper more pixels are going to be better. I am a cropper either changing the aspect ratio or fine tuning the out put image. I shoot with both and pick which camera is best for what I want to do for the shoot. One tool doesn’t do all jobs.
Nice work ..i own a ff , apsc and i recently bought a gh5 for video.. but i now find myself using it for stills as well. I think people who have that " ff will always win ! Printing ? Who cares about printing!" Mentality , are the ones who spend way too much time in front of a pc zoomed in at 400% counting pixels
Wow a lot of FF users really hated this video. One thing you didn’t mention was the dpi of the printer. Can it support 16x16 grey scale within a 600x600 dpi grid? Still I challenge anyone to tell the difference between a professionally shot image on either platform. And let’s not forget that people will be viewing these from an even greater distance. Very good demo. I’m going to be doing a video with all the printing math.
Glad you liked it Peter. This is UA-cam so the haters are to be expected I'm afraid, thankfully most of UA-cam viewers are not like that and take no notice of it. I would imagine it would print to those specs but I leave that up to printers, my job is to get the shot! Thanks 👍
I was a FF user and changed to fujifilm, however, there are caveats when it comes to using crop sensors. In areas, FF vs Crop will make NO difference what so ever.. but, when it comes to landscapes, portraits FF really does have the edge. We are now starting to see FF cameras falling into the same price bracket as crop sensor bodies, so really cost is unimportant, especially if you're professional. The crop sensor is fantastic, especially for sports, wildlife and event work, plus generally speaking they are FAR cheaper to purchase at an entry level. The reality is that FF will be for the short time coming much better for low light performance and will always give you the faster primes.
@@theschoolofphotography : no hate. Obviously, low ISO high DOF landscape, limited DR images would render quite similar on 4/3 or FF. But throw into some thin DOF, low light, landscape where you need to raise significantly the shadow and then you start to see differences. Those kind of tests where you try to normalize things and shoot within the shooting envelope of both, do not tell much. But where obviously FR shines is outside of smaller format shooting envelope. Too bad there was not any of such cases.
Nobody is saying that the extremes aren't catered for with larger sensors- that's why we still have MF. The argument that for most people 4/3 is more than enough, with other benefits.
Andrew C Just to clarify, if a camera with a smaller than FF sensor uses lenses made for that sensor then it is not a crop sensor. If you put an APS-C lens on a FF camera then you'll get a crop.
Which lenses were used on which cameras would have been useful too as the quality of the lens does matter. Also taking the same shot with the different cameras might have been an even better comparison which was mentioned below. I actually have a Panasonic G9 M4/3 and find the dual IS very good being able to take hand held pics with the Leica 100-400mm (200-800mm 35mm equivalent) for sports and birds. For landscapes and other subjects I have the 14-140mm Panasonic lens (28-280mm 35mm equivalent).
You can see difference in GOOD LIGHT shots, even Galaxy and Iphone can do wonders. Late evenings is something where BIGGER SENSORS shine. But for sizes like upto A3 M4/3 is more then sufficient for top quality.
This video literally shows micro four thirds prints at roughly A1 size. They weren't distinguishable from full frame. Did you miss that? Heck, search for Nigel Danson, pro landscape photographer. He could scarcely see difference comparing Fuji medium format to Fuji APS-C in landscape prints with fine details at A2 size.
Thank you for keep my GAS in control, I use APSC Fujifilm, and I hope you shall make in a near future a similar video comparing APSC (Mirrorless) to the full frame Mirrorless, from September on the market will get the new Canon and Nikon FF Mirrorless, besides the already existing Sony models.. Good job.
The reason a shot full frame is the venue are very dark and with no flash I notice a difference between my crop and full frame sensor same settings. Same lens
Low light certainly is an advantage for FF. Also dynamic range perhaps. I'd like small and lightweight but to take pics of sunsets and moon etc, so there is a conundrum there
very interesting. I think you would notice a difference if these were shot in low light or at night. May be try that one. I'm confident many would want to know.
definitely a difference, although I've heard some micro four thirds users say differently which is rubbish. I use a full frame Nikon d600 and also have an Olympus em10 Mark 2. comparing raw it's at least a couple of stops better in low light. the Olympus smooths out detail a lot more as well but it's still useable at high ISO.
Where the larger sensor is superior is in difficult situations, such as very low light and high contrast conditions. For this test you would have to enlarge much more to see the 4/3rds shot pixelate and show noise. You can also be much more creative with a FF.
I agree that there is functionally no difference between these two equipment setups. However, the lighting conditions definitely have an impact on this that you do not mention or acknowledge. I switched from APS-C to FF specifically because I was shooting in low light and the quality difference was quite significant. Even with today's better quality small sensors, the physics is still the same. Lower signal to noise ratios will still yield better results in low light situations. Still, if you do not spend a lot of time in low light, that Olympus package looks quite nice.
I have seen the same. I have sony a7iii and olympus em1-iii. I often do street photography at night. I have found that a7-iii remains visibly noise free upto iso 8000 whereas olympus yields similar result upto iso 1600.
Obviously both cameras take amazing photos. Both cameras are great for certain people doing certain things and as far as a print or image goes, it is very hard to find a difference by looking at them, which makes both valid for most photographers. I'd like to point out though, that what truly separates them besides low light shooting, is the ability to get closer to a subject either physically or in zoom. The crop frame APS-C/ micro 4/3 cameras allow you to use that 100 mm lens and have the same field of view as a 150 mm or 200 mm lens which is a great benefit to some. I would argue though that the full frame and anything larger benefits portrait and close up shooters, or shooter who have a small studio. While I can frame two images using different lenses to fill the frame in the same way for a portrait, a 50 mm lens on a micro 4/3 camera will give a certain rounded distorted face to my subject making them look chunkier and less flattering. I can get the composition of subject using a 100 mm on a full frame camera and that distortion is well controlled, giving a more pleasing look from the same shooting position. Medium format cameras would allow you to use even longer lenses and get the same field of view, giving even more pleasing facial features. Obviously cost goes up with each of the subsequent systems, but the right tool for the right job is always important, not that only one tool is the right tool for any one job. I think at the end of the day, what is most important is knowing your systems and understanding the strengths and weaknesses that they present, then being able to utilize them properly. If I shoot outside in the sun, all day long and don't need any super long fast lenses, a micro 4/3 system would always be a benefit if proximity made no difference, if however, I shoot sports at night and need to photograph a goalkeeper from 100 meters away, a full frame DSLR that has a system of fast super telephoto lenses is my best option. If I am a portrait photographer that works in my tiny spare bedroom shooting headshots, a larger sensor will probably give me the look I am after.
I’ve just decided to sell my Olympus OM-D EM10mkii, because I didn’t get on with the handling. I loved the image quality and the aspect ratio. But what I found annoying with it became reasons not to take it out. I’ve taken great images with this camera. And the handling and it feels in your hand is far more important than the pixel count and the sensor size.
I use a Nikon D500, which has a 21mp APS-C sensor, even bigger the micro four-thirds. I am getting criticised all the time by landscapers for not using a 30+ MP full-frame camera. (the reasoning being, you can crop into a full-frame image to improve the composition..I say, learn composition and get it right in-camera!) Thank you for laying this to rest at last. You can go big with a sensor as small as micro four-thirds. QED, you can go big with APS-C...
I am croping my 24mp images and still get nice prints out of it. This video was not a comparison of micro 4/3 vs FX sensor, more about different pixelsize.
..."I say learn the composition and get it right in the camera" is a little light. It is forgetting that we might have to crop an image smaller for different reasons than the base composition. Some sites will only accept square images, some you'll need 3x2 format and others you'll be asked 4x3. What do you do with that ? I have an FF 3x2 native and I often compose with the 4x3 export format in mind for later where I will loose top and bottom or some of each, thus composing wider knowing that I might have to crop in post. If I was "getting it right in the camera from the start" as you suggest it would quiet mess up that perspective and my croping options for what I describe. Comments welcomed...
Ultimately, it is a personal choice with a huge array of variables. I research via such discussions to see what the limitations of each happens to be, for THAT is the ultimate choice. I have been shooting digital since my E-510 and E-1 days and both are good bodies to this day IF one shoots with their limitations in mind. There is not a one-size-fits all system... If you are happy with your results, that is all that counts, period. My dad shot Oly professionally most of his adult life, as well, after working with 35mm and 4x5 formats prior... I am only semi-professional but am always grateful when others enjoy and/or buy my work. I often see the "snobbery" and arguments, then look at the "experts" work and think, "So what?"... Some of the arguments are ridiculous and it's obvious in some of those cases that the "experts" haven't mastered their supposedly "superior" gear in the first place. Isn't subjectivity great? lol :) A belated "thanks" for the discussion and video comparisons (yes, a few years late)... This was a nice presentation!
Wow, I am a big fan of M4/3 format and have enjoyed using my E-M1 Mk1 for a couple years now (enough that I sold off my Pentax K-5 kit). Given that, I am still a bit shocked that prints blown up to that huge size still didn't reveal a difference in detail given the pixel count disparity. Truly impressive. However, I will also say that for broad daylight shooting, it's a very even playing field. Even as a big fan of the format, there are trade-offs. Had this shoot comparison consisted of low-light/night shots, it is possible the 5DIV might have provided some noticeably superior prints. Fine by me, the system still does everything I demand of it quite well, including low-light stuff (and I don't even have the Mk II).
Having done just that, I'd claim that "it depends". If you're shooting low light action shots, or from a tripod, the Canon wins. If you're shooting stills, handheld, the Olympus will win every time. Why? IBIS. I can shoot down to 2-4 seconds handheld. So I can (and do) shoot all kinds of low light at ISO200. The Canon's going to need 1/50s or whatever, so you're going to bang that ISO way up. And that's pretty much always the different. Put that Canon on a tripod, it's going to win. They have those $20,000 lenses for pro sports that don't really exist for most systems (Nikon, I suppose, and Sony's built a few). Lenses that demand tripods. But I don't shoot from tripods, unless I'm shooting video. And even there: Olympus was offering better video than Canon in this same time frame, even though Olympus was hardly a video-oriented company. It's kind of like the EOS Cinema folks got control at Canon and made the crapify DSLR video. They're back on track with mirrorless... sort of. They're still one of the only companies limiting recording to 30 minutes on stills cameras, even in 2021.
I have a print on my wall , approx 100 x 60 cm , that was taken 10 yrs ago on an EOS 350d ( 8 mp from memory ) with a kit lens. It is a stunning image and is commented upon favorably by everyone who sees it. I am pretty much certain that any MFT camera in existence could capture a cleaner , clearer , image , not to mention my current full frame kit . When i find myself tempted by the latest and greatest , I stop and look at that picture . Use whatever works for you and remember this , the vast majority of the most famous and impactful photographs ever created , were not taken on the latest , cutting edge ,multi megapixel imaging behemoths .
I have a huge poster print of one of my old photos above my PC , every time I start thinking I need more megapixels or a larger sensor, I remember that image came from a heavily cropped (down to about 4 megapixels!) image from a Canon 50D and it looks absolutely great unless you're literally pressing your face to the glass.
I'm so tired of full frame nonsense. There are tons of pro photographers doing amazing nighttime work with micro 4/3. It's how you use the tool. Look up Olympus Live composite mode for lots of examples.
Exactly its die hard fans to full frame like there were die hard fans to film... They don't like change and will stay loyal to their camera like Iphone fans to Apple.
Let's all pause for a minute, and imagine a fabulous camera which has a sensor that is half the size of a 4/3 camera. Eventually, you come to realize, for a variety of reasons, that larger format cameras are better for a variety of technical reasons, virtually regardless of the mexapixels taken into account. Both Full Frame and DX cameras are suitable for different kinds of professional work, and some kinds of photography can almost be done interchangably between the two cameras. But if you're a wildlife photgrapher, then you sure as hell don't want to be using the sortsof gigantic telephoto lenses which the most common brands offer. (In particular, just Nikon and Canon). Same goes for sports photography. Use a full frame? Nah, just not the best of ideas there.
I have been using Olympus for many years, and will say this, what ever camera you use, if your happy with what you have that's fine. I myself use the Olympus cameras as there light, easy to carry around, great for street photography, I now have the OMD 1 mkII and among my lens the 12-40mm 2.8, and they are really good, I mean really good, and I went to japan in september after two hours of arriving, my son and I went to The Shibuya Crossing at night and it poured down with rain, I mean pissed it down, the camera and lens got a real soaking, but no problem at all. As much as I like full frame cameras, for me the Olympus, is an outright winner, well thats my thoughts anyway, but it's always interesting the hear different opinions, low light performance has also improved up to at least iso 1600, the battery is bigger and will last nearly all day, with a decent grip. Oh yes and on last item, image quality is excellent, anyway, happy new year, and lets hope its a great one, good night.
You make an important statement here, Clive! As with all things, being it a musical instrument, a camera, paintbrush... or whatever: if you feel good using it, you will get better results.
If one takes a look at the original prints by let's say Henry Cartier Bresson, realizes that sharpness, or even focus sometimes are quite irrelevant for the strenght of the image itself. It seems to tell us to not waste time on secondary questions...
True, in THAT genre (photojournalism or documentary work), image "sharpness" is indeed secondary to the "story". However, for certain genres, such as landscape and product photography, image sharpness and detail retention is a MAJOR criterion for a successful (and publishable) image. A "soft" image of a product would simply not make it to print.
I shoot as a photojournalist. I want sharp photos. I will use the photo that tells the story, but if I have a better image that is clear and sharp it will beat out the out of focus shot. There is a reason people buy good glass and good cameras. MFT is not for the pro as much. You can use it as a good photographer will get photos with anything, but they will get more shots and better shots with better gear.
Makes sense... I was in a top notch landscape photo art gallery the other day, in Laguna Beach Ca, where pictures were quiet amazing (and unfortunately selling in 4 digits numbers) and the guy was using a D850 with top glass for his work, I thought he was using a medium format at first. Still, I should have asked him his thoughts on going with a m4/3 for his next shots, but I didn't want to be kicked out with tar and feathers... Just teasing, m4/3 today are great cameras that will do fantastic job in most occurences.
Î shoot full frame and aps-c (6d &7d) . In most circumstances , the results are indistinguishable . Assuming you get the exposure roughly correct and shoot at sensible ISOs , both systems are capable great things . I tend to prefer the full frame for it's cleaner high ISO performance ,but seeing how I use the lowest ISO I can get away with , this seldom comes into play. A major reason for my FF preference is that in my case , it is (counter intuitively) my lighter ànd less bulky option.
very nice comparison. Those who believe m43 cannot produce pro results might want to consider switching to an 8x10 film camera since their full frame cameras are obviously using an inferior size sensor and only the 8x10 film camera will produce superior results.
I’m an engineer and this is not a very scientific comparison, however, your idea of showing the final print is a polite way of telling us that a real professional can use any of these cameras to create artistic photos. Technology improves over time, but real artwork lasts forever. Today’s m43 can certainly outperform an old generation FF spec-wise but so what. There are still many photos hanging in galleries shot with even a first gen FF DSLR.
Hi thanks for the comments. If you want scientific comparisons you're on the wrong channel I'm afraid. This is a real life comparison. Hope that helps 😊
@@theschoolofphotography Yes it was very helpful indeed! Glad I watched the whole thing till the end. Btw, I used to shoot with FF but changed to m43 simply because of the size. I travel a lot and like to carry at least 3 lenses which would be too heavy if using my old FF.
It is not about megapixels but I think you might see difference when it comes to depth of field taking photos in low-light situation and the dynamic range All of these photos have been taken in a perfect lighting conditions .
I own and use a Nikon D3300. It’s literally the cheapest DSLR, Nikon sells. Somehow, it’s still an amazing camera. Depending on the lens, it gives amazing quality, sharpness and colours. A part of me really wants a D7500, D500, Z6 or something even more expensive and there would be benefits of having one of these cameras. But when I’m in a reasonable mood, I’m well aware that I don’t need anything more than what I have, since I’m only a beginner/intermediate photographer.
Some people still think they need the latest and greatest Sony A7 VIII with 86 megapixels to shoot pictures of their cat and share it on Instagram.
Ha, thanks for sharing 👍
Does better gear make a difference?
Well yes, but with a whole bunch of asterisks.
You might have certain limitations with lesser gear, but those limitations might be irrelevant depending on the conditions, or the type of scene, or you might be able to just work around them.
You might only need the better gear in edge cases where you're really running against those limitations.
@@Knowbody42 Agree completely. Better gear means more possibilities, definitely.
But we live in a time and age when professional photography in the best conditions can be done with a phone, so if the best gear is actually hindering your capability of taking the shot, well then it's not the best gear.
When you get to proper cameras, it's mostly about what you prefer, if I had to bring around 2Kg of gear just for hiking or taking pictures of my friends I'd probably just forget about it, some other people might think that if they can't shoot nighttime with a fast shutter they'd rather not buy the gear.
Either is fine, as long as you know what you're buying.
sensor size and pixel count are not necessarily related as this is implicitely assumed here
Lol. Great observation and context.
I got rid of my full frame gear and went Olympus micro 4/3rd, and I don’t have a sore back anymore. Image quality wise, I can’t tell the difference and neither can my customers.
I entered a photo contest and came in dead last. I complained and told them to look at the sharpness and dynamic range of my photos. Mine were the best in that regard, no contest! The judges mentioned composition, light, mood and other artsy nonsense. Obviously the judges haven't been paying close enough attention to the camera manufacturer's ads.
XD
and thats the thing, specs and hardware can be as high as you want. If there is no artistic input its a shitty photo. It should be the photographers and videographers taking the image, not the hardware.
I hate to burst your bubble, but that "arty nonsense" is what distinguishes "holiday snaps" from "photographic art." For example, a sharp and full-dynamic-range snap of your cat's head In The Exact Center of The Image Frame just won't cut it. Ask one of the judges how to improve the head shot of Fluffy and you'll actually learn something. (Cheaper than Art class.;)
Otokichi786 Apparently the sarcasm was missed. Your point is the point I was making.
I figured as much, but I couldn't resist "going into instructor mode.";)
I have prints from Panasonic M4/3's hanging in hotels that are up to 6ft on the long edge. No one ever questions what kind of camera I use.
Sure, but to whom would they ask and how would you know?..
@@findalain1 The hotel owners of course are not interested in what camera/lens is used - they just like the photos.
Only people who are interested in photography (and gear) ask themselves what equipment and techniques are used, not then? But mostly if a photo is that good someone would hang it wall-size in a public place, the gear is unimportant. The emotion it brings all the more.
@@Yu2beFool I understand everything you said before the comma in the first sentence but lost you after that!
@@Stalled-wm3qd That's possibly because the comma was in the wrong place ;-)
I’m not surprised at the result.
I’m an amateur photographer who uses a full frame Canon 5D Mk III DSLR, and increasingly a Canon G1X Mk II compact, which has a sensor about the same size as micro 4/3, for walking and travel. Portability is a major factor, and a full frame DSLR is heavy when you’re carrying it round all day.
At my photography club I’ve been just as successful in competitions with photos taken on the compact as those taken on the DSLR.
Having owned both a 6D (full frame) and 80D together, I dismissed MFT ever since I heard about it--which was maybe 5 years ago when I saw an E-M1 ad. When I researched it and saw the size of the sensor I laughed. After seeing photos on line for awhile, and having lugged my 6D and 2 L lenses on a 3 day tip to Europe, I decided to rent a E-M5 mkII and a Lumix 12-35mm 2.8 on a trip to Utah. One week after my return I bought my own E-M5mkii, Olympus 12-40 2.8 and Lumix 24-100 2.8. The sharpness and colors can't be beat. All of my Canon equipment is being packed this week and shipped off to KEH. Oh and my backpack got much, much lighter.
I pick up my Canon 5D Mark II from time to time and think to myself "I thought this was a run-and-gun camera?" I love my GH5, but goof with my 5D once in a blue moon because sensor size makes a difference when doing sunset timelapses :)
Man, it makes me happy when I find another person who discovers the potential of the M4/3's
@@PedroDVC Yes I am loving it. My original post was mistyped though: It was a 3 week trip--and 4 to 6 miles of city walking each day. Now since DXO Photolabs 4 came out with their Deep Prime NR it's even better: I can shoot 25,600 with no issues.
My first E-M5 got me more serious about using M43 over my Canon system. I bought the E-M5 II when it came out, and that kind of cemented the deal. By the time I sold my 6D and Canon system, I also had the Pen-F. I was getting the same quality 99% of the time.
With a modern FF system, you can probably pay less attention to getting things technically correct, since you have more exposure latitude than on M43. But that also lets people get lazy... and UA-cam is mostly full of those being lazy. Any time you see a smartphone beating a FF DSLR or mirrorless, that doesn't tell you about the phone so much as the user didn't understand their camera.
@@DaveHaynie Good point! There are ways to overcome pretty much every obstacle. All of my pictures are travel and family for which the m43 does just brilliantly.
It’s amazing how many people like to make Strawman arguments to justify the system they use. I doubt that many users of fullframe cameras chose fullframe because it gives them an advantage when printing large. They more likely chose it because it suits their needs in terms of noise and dynamic range and ability to recover shadows and highlights when processing the raw file and sometimes because of choice of lenses or getting a shallow depth of field or autofocus capabilities, etc. And people who chose M43 probably didn’t choose M43 because it gives them an advantage when printing large either. They probably chose M43 because they prefer smaller/lighter lenses and bodies or because of the superior IBIS or cheaper lenses or some other unique features that the M43 cameras have.
You have nailed the reasonings. I bought a m43 camera for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I am mainly interested in street photography and wanted to use tele zoom lens. Full frame camera with massive 70-200 does not make sense for street photography but m43 camera with 35-100 lens ( FF equivalent of 70-100) gives me a nice manageable kit.
@@কাঁঠালেরআমসত্ত্ব hmmm which would be best for filmmaking? Or a good all around camera?
@@SOLIDSNAKE. that depends a lot on the budget and how important it is for you to keep the option of upgrading viable.
@@SOLIDSNAKE. For filmmaking it is about lights and glass. Spend you money there not the camera.
@@roww10 thank you for the knowledge drop!
the real difference between a FF and a M4:3 ... is the photographer ;)
If you had all the money in the world you wouldn’t buy m4/3 would you...
are not the money and what you get, that makes you a photographer or a filmmaker
As for sustainability, it is
"sustainability"?!?! really? meanwhile, back in the real, practical world...
@daijizai yes, but only slight improvements in the real world for most people at a huge price premium....
Thanks for this video. I'm in photography from more than 30 years now (was a wedding one) and i've switched in µ4/3 3 years ago, when the system seemed complete for a pro needs with pro bodies and lenses (EM1 and the Zuiko f:2.8 triade).
In fact, even if 24x36 is technicaly superior in several points, there is a lot of wonderfull innovations founded only in this system (live programs, 4K photo, focus stacking...) and I found this system sufficient for 95% of my needs and even 100% with a little care and adaptation! In all cases much more valuable than my old argentic bodies wich gave me fantastic results since the 80's... But in this time we were looking at photos on real paper, not pixel peeping! And "real" wedding photographers were in 6x6...
The real advantage of µ4/3 is polyvalence: it can be as small as a pocketable GM1 & 12-32 (or 20:1.7), tiny like an EM10 & 9-18 or 14-150, or Pro like an GX9 or EM1-II with grip & 12-100mm or 40-150:2.8... That's the only system who can offer such a diversity to photographers and I do love that!
Thanks for sharing Alex, appreciate the comments 👍
Actually, the Olympus is in this instance less than 20mp as it has been set to 3x2 therefore cropping a load off the top and bottom, probably coming out at around 18Mp for print. Which means the difference (or lack of) is even more remarkable
Thanks for the comments Brian 👍
I spent almost 10 years with a Nikon D700 as my "primary" camera and a Nikon 7100 as my easy carry and backup camera. When I needed to replace the 7100, I looked at the majority of my best prints and realized they were from the 7100. The best camera we own is most often the one we will actually carry and use. I replaced the 7100 with an Oly OM-D EM5 mark II. Better IQ than the 7100 and fexible enough to replace the D700 in the studio. I will keep the Nikon for low light with movement. For all else the Oly is the ticket.
@@theschoolofphotography Even less, isn't this Olympus 16MP?
30 likes on this comment? changing the aspect ratio doesn't make any difference whatsoever. It will still be the same dpi. If u take a printed photo and cut a strip off the top and bottom does it change the quality of what's left?
@@williampowell2139 it really doesnt matter what camera you use willy.... your pics are crappy either way
I have also made these comparisons several times. It's absolutely true: Both on the iMac 27" with the fantastic 5K monitor or directly on a enlargement from the printing studio, differences - especially with different subjects - are kind of difficult or impossible to detect.
But in my opinion, this is not the criterion in most cases, unless someone starts to deal with photography from scratch and makes his (valuable!) considerations because of the weight and the money.
An experienced NIKON, CANON or even LEICA photographer will hardly change from full format to 4/3rd because of supposed sharpness problems. Such do simply not exist! Because aforementioned cameras are certainly not worse - only heavier and more expensive - unfortunately!
Only, and this IS an argument - in my age (75) one has visibly trouble to drag a D850 or even D5 or D6 together with the matching best-seller lenses 2.8/24-70 and 2.8/70-200 mm for hours on a trip or in the city.
However, completely different criteria definitely count more:
Habit, the safe, familiar handling, the fantastic cropping possibilities, contrast range, noise behavior, especially from 1600 ISO and higher - or their ISO performance in general and - already purchased lenses! These are indeed far more important for these people!
I found for myself an affordable solution:
I searched and found a barely 3-year-old, beautiful OLYMPUS-2nd-hand body: The OLYMPUS PEN-F plus a 21mm Voigtländer wide angle! This couple ist simply a dream for city- and landscape photography! And with a little bit of luck - one can find it for less than 1'000.- €.
Best regards to all!
Rolf Oehen, Switzerland
I’m not a professional and don’t do large prints. I switched from FF to APSC and now back to FF. I do mostly portrait and shots of my family. The full frame gives me a certain look that I could not replicate on my APSC, maybe depth of field? Regardless, for me... there was a noticeable difference, and I’m young enough that the weight does not bug me too much. Thanks for the video!
You're Welcome Munoz, glad you liked it :)
Thank you. Put my mind at ease. Now buying a G9 with no anxiety.
Glad to help👍
After scoring the G9 I retired all my SLRs. It does video and photo like a beast.
Thanks for comparing the two side-by-side in prints. It truly shows the realities of m4/3's with no true distinction between the quality. This was a great lesson for those looking for a camera. I know it sold me on what I'm getting.
Thanks Damian glad it helped you out 👍
I'm omd em1 user and I really love this camera , very sharp , so light with the smaller body and lens .
Thanks for the comments Ishak 👍
I love how you combined a technical discussion with an artistic semi-tutorial, plus a small introduction to Southend-on-Sea. That's exactly the type of mix to implement against potentially boring videos. Like!
Thanks for the comments Hezi 👍
Thanks for this, great work. Went from canon to panasonic G85 two years ago and more recently GH5 as well and am blown away by their image quality and overall superiority. Very clever capable compact cameras.
You're welcome Barry, glad you liked it 👍
@@theschoolofphotography My quesion would be if we take the canonr3 and the gh6 which 2 has arund the same megapixels, than take the pana 50-200 2-8-4 and canon rf 100-400 5.6-8 same wight similar size, same aparature. 2s crop, same funckiioning lense, because of still the ff sensor, would you be able to get the same detailed quality shots of you would have the same motors in the lenses and same quality kinda like bodies?
Micro four thirds is awesome because you can get those crazy telephotos plus the 2x crop factor so you can get equivalent to 200-600 millimeters for 600 bucks but try getting something like that on full frame and you're not gonna be able to pay your bills.
Great video,thanks. Now factor in that most people are not even shooting for print. They are shooting photos that get compressed, resized and put on websites and social media that are being viewed on mobile devices and the differences between the two becomes even more negligible....
You're welcome Micheal, glad you liked it 👍
i see a lady that likes it small
Sensor size is not directly linked to mega pixels. I feel like stating megapixel for each camera may confuse some people.
That's what he was trying to do. It is called poisoning the well.
@@meatbyproducts I cant remember who tried out both full frame and crop sensor Nikons!D500 and D750 for a photo comparison!the D500 had more details sometimes since a nice amount of pixels was cramped into a smaller area but smoother pictures overall!
@@bernhardtsen74 different generation of cameras. The D500 and D850 would be a better comparison. I carry one of each. The D500:shoots fast the D850 has the big senor with more information and captures more.
I was looking for this comment!
I have both of these cameras, and the only time I see a difference that matters is in low light. No matter how you slice it, the Canon is better in that situation. That said, I use the Olympus the most because it's smaller, lighter, and generally easier to carry. I love them both.
Also, this may matter to some, Canon skin colors are still unrivaled. That doesn't mean Olympus is bad, but Canon is king in the skin color department, and not just when compared to Olympus.
The Serial Hobbyist Girl And today's mirrorless FF and aps-c are so compact that the argument of using m4/3 because of size is irrelevant. My a6000 is smaller than many m4/3 cameras.
@@okamisanwa the bodies are mainly the same size for m4/3, apsc and ff, but the lenses differ a lot. The smaller, lighter lenses usually are what you get m4/3 for. :)
I can agree on that. But even there you have some really small and compact lenses for aps-c and full frame. It depends on what you need. Still, a f/1.8 lens for m4/3 would not even get close to the quality of an equivalent lens on a full frame. The field of view, depth of field, iso etc. But it totally depends on what you need, some people are even fine with mobile cameras.
Richie You're so wrong, sensor size DOES NOT determine the depth of field. What determines this is the distance between the subject and the camera. The reason why smaller sensors don't seem to have a shallow depth of field is because unlike full frame sensors, they force you to move backwards to capture the whole scene which then narrows the depth of field.
Hi SHG, I gather that, if you want to talk about skin tones, you are shooting JPEG? Because a raw shooter can totally control that sort of thing, irrespective of camera. cheers
I have done a similar test (not printed, but on a 27" calibrated monitor) with an Olympus E5 and a Canon 5D (some would call it "Mark 1"). Both approximately 12-13 megapixels and ... mostly the Olympus got more fine detail in foliage. Both lenses were used at their optimal aperture (f/6.3 for the Zuiko and f/9 for the Canon). The main difference is the depth of field: a full frame will always have a shallower DOF. To prove that I took a 50mm Zuiko (from my OM-2n) and put it on both camera's to photograph the same object. You might suspect a shallower DOF on the Olympus since 50mm converts to 100, but the distance is also doubled and because the DOF is decreased when the distance increases, the DOF is even shallower!
And... This is a very interesting video, Marc.
Thanks for sharing this info, glad you liked the video 👍
@@dzevadbayraktar322 You can always stop down your lens for more DOF, whatever camera you're using. FF gives you the choice to go with very shallow DOF if you want to.
I am absolutely sure that both cameras perform to level beyond the need of the average photographer including the ' pros ', but surely the only way to properly compare them would have been to shoot the same subject at the same FOV at optimal aperture. Good show BTW, thanks.
Yes that would be a more technical test because the subject matter might play into the perception of sharpness - and so might the aperture and lens used. I'm interested to know if the lens resolution can beat the megapixels or vice versa. It's agood real life illustration though that the difference is likely minimal.
As someone who is planning this kind of transition in gear I was really pleased to watch this video. Many thanks.
You're welcome Steve, glad it helped you out 👍
Very enjoyable video. I owned an Omlympus EM1 mark II for about 17 months and have to say it was a fantastic bit of kit, easily comparable to my Nikon D500. In fact, it was a lot more versatile for wildlife photography than my D500. I often took almost identical shots with both cameras and most of the time could not tell them apart. The only drawback with the EM1.2 was it's performance in lower light. I swapped both cameras for a Sony A7III and A7II system and there is a big difference in the quality of my images when shooting in low light, which is most of the time where I live. My perfect camera would be a full frame EM1 mark II.
Thanks for sharing Pete 👍
pete draper I have done essentially the Same as you regarding camera choices. I shot commercial and residential real estate with my em1ii and pro set of Olympus lenses for around 2 years. The camera is absolutely a pleasure to use and delivered excellent results. The fast frame rate was especially useful in photographing birds and a 2.8 aperture from 14-300mm equip is phenomenal. I eventually decided to go to an A7Rii for the same reasons- better low light while also delivering higher resolution. There are some trade-offs such as frame rate and lens size/cost but I believe the A7R’s are about the closest thing currently out there to the em1ii. 👍👍
Pete...miss seeing your images and updates in the Oly groups! That A7III...how's that been for shooting birds in flight in comparison to the em1.2? I'm just curious as for the money, it looks like a great all around camera.
@@markwashburn1485 Hi Mark, thanks a lot. The A7III is really good for BIF when combined with the Sony 100 - 400mm G Master. It's lightweight, too. I always reckoned my EM1.2 was very close to my D500 for BIF and the A7III is perhaps slightly better than the EM1.2. I am really pleased with it: moving to FF was the right choice for me.
@@klackon1 - that's great to hear Pete! Have you used the 1.4 extender with the 100 - 400 as yet?
In my experience, the difference between medium format, full-frame, APS-C, M4/3 is in low light performance, depth of field, and small detail differences of distance objects (traffic cones on a distant road, rock detail off on a distant cliffside).
And yet another great video! I have the Olympus micro four thirds and couldn’t be happier.
Great to hear!
This video helped me to lift up my spirit! Thank you! I have the Nikon D7100 and by looking at the photos taken by a friend of mine with the Nikon D 810 I've being feeling hopeless. My motto is that I will never spend the big bucks on a full frame camera until the day I really have and understanding of the technical aspects of my cropped frame camera. Thank you again!
You're welcome and that's a very good attitude to have 👍
I wonder if the results would be different if two of the same pictures were compared. Interesting video non the less.
Thanks Phil, glad you liked it :)
Yeah, the apples were as good as the oranges here ;-) I shoot with m4/3, but I would have liked to have seen shots of the same subjects, with some movement/detail in the photos to visually differentiate the two -- and some shots in low light.
@@GregConquest everyone knows that a difference can be made, including m4/3 shooters. Personally, I like the organic aspect of film and any digital camera + lens combination that succeeds in giving me the same feel. I have satisfaction working with natural light only.
I can find use of m4/3 in macro and product photography (where an FF needs special methods-tricks), but also street photography. It works good for portraits, but you need tricks as longer focal or far away backgrounds. It would be too bad for such a well developed technology to disappear.
Amen to that, Phil!
Sir this is first hands on proof that micro thirds is worth looking into. For half the weight and half the prize it's worth trying it. Thanks!
You're welcome Julio 👍
I believe size of the sensor does not matter for most of the time. There are certainly situations when bigger is better: if you want to achieve extreme background blur and in low light situations when you can afford to trade more background blur for less noise. But on the other hand Panasonic G80 has dual IS that allows to use longer exposure times for hand held static pictures. Well you can use quite extreme manual f0.95 lens or metaboost adaptors, but i don't want to buy lenses with limited use.
When it comes to size, I started with Panasonic GF1 and 20mm/f1.7 lens. It's small, but it does not handle well with heavier lenses (like over 250 grams) and I found out that beefy grip is quite good. I ended with G80 using 12-60/f3.5-5.6 or 12-35/f2.8 lens most of the time and Oly 45mm/f1.8 or Pan 20mm/f1.8 for some situations. 12-60 is more universal and does not suffer from flares that much, 12-35 is better for indoors and low light situations like overcast winter days. It's not extremely small or lightweight setup, but I remember one friend traveling with 3-8kg of photo related stuff (camera, lenses, tripod) in backpack.
For some reason, I enjoyed GF1 most and I believe my best photos are from that camera, because it's lightweight and I enjoyed to carry it in the city and take pictures for fun. Sometimes it's good to have camera when there something unusual (like light after brief evening storms etc.)
@@theschoolofphotographyOn ne fait pas de la photo, pour le compte fil ou alors on s'inscrit dans un club photo.
At work, I run a camera club and we decided to put some of the winners as full wall pictures i.e. 3m X 2m. It's fair to say we're were no experts and the pictures were roughly 3MB to 8MB. One picture was from a reasonable (but NOT top notch) camera phone, two were from canon SX point 1/2.3 and shoots.
I was blown away by the quality as they were blown up to such a size. What I noticed - if the size of the picture is life size e.g. a landscape size then your eyes simply fill in the gaps. If however you make the picture too big, the your eyes switch off and look at the gaps.
I have to write this as pixel peeping is not what most people judge - only fellow photographers. They will see the forest full of blue bells.
Thanks for sharing Paul. 👍
As someone who uses micro 43 for pro work as well as for photos at home its good to see the micro 43 prints doing so well..am I surprised? Perhaps a little but then again I have always been impressed with the IQ from these cameras so thanks for taking the time to create such an interesting video...
Thanks Neil, appreciate the comments 👍
Excellent and honest comparison. I do appreciate the printer being involved.
Thanks, appreciate the comments and glad it helped 👍
@@theschoolofphotography I have a question about the printer. I currently use a Canon bubble jet printer, a Pixma MP237 with good enough quality printouts for my personal photos. I have been using it for around 5 years now and I'm planning to buy a new one. It seems that the Epson photo printer with 6 color cartridges has better quality printouts but what concerns me is that it uses print heads that are permanently attached to the printer while the Canon uses print heads that are attached to the removable cartridges. Now whenever the print heads of my Canon printer get dirty and clogged, I simply remove the cartridges and clean the print heads with moist cotton balls. With Epson's fixed print heads, I cannot do that unless I dismantle the printer or take it to the repair shop. So, should I buy the Epson or stick with the Canon brand for my new printer? Also, can you recommend a better printer with removable print heads than a Canon? Thank you so much.
Wow! I am floored. I have learned a lot from this video lesson. I am staying with my Canon 7D and M6 I can print anything up to a meter without worry.
Great video again. The conclusion of all the videos I have watched on FF v APSc and MFTs is that a FF is only worth it if you shoot a lot in low light with a super wide aperture.
Thanks for the comments Martin 👍😊
and even then m43 would be better than ff if you were shooting low light still life. M43 image stabilization makes anything else look like a joke haha. Handheld 4 second exposures are possibly on an em1 mark 2
Marc I saw a Lake District landscape in a local (and very accomplished) printers at the same size as your comparison prints. This was about 13 years ago. I was stunned and remarked Wow! that must have been taken on a large-format camera (I meant greater than 35mm full-frame). His reply? "Actually it was taken on a 3 megapixel pocket camera". Seeing the skeptical look on my face, he assured me it was so and said that the interpolation sophistication and other technical wizardry of his Canon laser-scan printers eliminated colour fringing, noise/grain, distortion etc, etc, etc. (I'd just spent a very, significant sum on my first dslr outfit and so wobbled home suffering from PTSD 8-) Your service and presentation are top-notch Marc, thanks very much.
You're welcome Mike, glad you liked it 👍
So, you're talking 'in-printer' image correction instead of in-camera image correction?
Should beginners like myself not worry about researching and getting the best camera gear (for their budget) themselves, but worry about how to find the best printers firm instead? (any tips welcome!)
@@timonsolus The best camera is the one you've got with you. It seems to me that any so-called amateur dslr or mirrorless camera with any kind of sensor is over qualified in providing stunning results - the rest is just marketing blather. Choose the camera you really like and which has a range of sensibly priced lenses and forget pixel-peeping, the end product is all that matters and the journey to it. btw my £250 Chinese phone can do things even the MOST expensive cameras can't and the top-end ones are capable of what seems like magic. Mobile phone technologists started from scratch unhindered by what's gone before in designing photographic capabilities and image capture. Hopefully Nikon, Canon, Sony etc are working overtime to catch up. I'd say there are few in the extremely competitive printing world who can afford to lag behind in updating their services with the very latest equipment. Ahh! Sometimes though I DO miss my darkroom and the fascination of an image forming gradually upon paper in the developer, another type of magic altogether 8-)
Even more the m4/3 sensor was cropped to a 3x2 ratio thus less than 20 mp compared to 30 mp. Nice!
Glad you liked the vid Marc 👍🏼
I wondered why he didn't crop the Canon to 4/3 instead of cropping the Olympus to 3/2.
@@normanhavens8982 because then the full-frame army would call foul 😁
A new full frame is better at low light than a new micro four thirds. A micro four thirds is better for travelling (either long hikes or travelling with longer lenses with carry-on at the airport). Also the aspect ratio varies. I prefer the 4:3 shape, it is more pleasing in my opinion (yes you can crop, or set non-native aspect ratio), you see this ratio in several medium format cameras as well.
The third thing is the 'photographic experience'; It can be the best image making device on earth, but if you do not enjoy the process, then it is not the camera for you. If you really enjoy using canon, then canon is the brand for you, however, if you hate using the canon system, then don't use it. It is the experience you have, the interactions between you, the camera and the subject that determine the final result. I believe most modern cameras are suitable for most things (there are exceptions), so explore a little if you can before you buy...maybe even hire a few systems for a few days and test them out. Find the pros and cons in your own case. Maybe full frame is too heavy, maybe you mainly shoot low light events, maybe you focus heavily towards the super shallow medium format DoF look? There might be a cost issue to consider? A modern camera will last you a long time (barring disaster) and most made today are suitable for all but the most demanding user in specific situations. So, know the differences. Don't expect to shoot sports with medium format, don't expect a low light marvel from a micro four thirds, don't expect to carry several full frame long lenses on a long hike. You may end up with a couple of systems? If you have the cash then no worries, if cash is tight you may need to compromise on a system that nearly does everything.
The best comment I've read thus far.
I dont sure A7III vs New OM 1 (Wildlife, Landscape,night Photography)
When your work is hanging in the Getty Museum, no one cares if the edges are sharp.
Well... Getty Museum did may be...
Even more: no-one cares if the photo is sharp! (Take an expensive 50 megapixel FF and use it without a tripod and it would instantly be degraded to a 10 megapixel)
Who's work is hanging at the Getty? I'm 20mins from there and would like to see it.
yep, talk about sharp edges bs to moriyama :-) photograpy's big money is in fashion / luxery product ads today, so, this idiocy about the need for your pix to be extra sharp all the time is mostly influenced by criterias normally for people who work with 20k gear all the time. camera/lenses manufacturers are just happy to play this game trying to sell to hoi poloi lambourgines even if the crowd needs estate wagons as they stay on insterstate 95% of the time... so funny to see dozens of folks who paid 3-5k for their top notch cameras/lenses and all they they show to the world is FB photos seen on 5" screens...
Well one thing to note is that when you are printing larger, you don't really need higher resolution than what the Micro 4/3 has because the viewer is going to be standing further back to view the image. I also wonder if the DPI even matches the lower end amount of pixels.
Since digital photography has brought the craft of making photographs to so many more people, more and more photographs are being consumed by the person that took the photo rather than put into print form and consumed by a general audience. As this has occurred, more and more of the appreciation or approval of images comes at the point of editing/developing the image on the photographer's own screens, rather than at the print stage. Indeed, few photos, even those that are technically very good, ever make it to print but are simply viewed and enjoyed by the photographer. In this light, it makes sense that the photographer's own view of their work is their primary source informing them and giving them a means of enjoying the images they craft. Thus it's understandable that for more and more people, their own views of their own images on large backlit computer screens, are where they make their first impressions of their work. I understand this is the way it is for many and it's why many may feel the difference in quality at 100% on a large monitor is significant enough to warrant their using a camera and sensor to produce images that, in reality, could not be distinguished from those taken with equal skill with a smaller sensor camera.
When I'm involved shooting high speed action/sports in poor light, I recognize the challenges I will have with my E-M1 mark II bodies vs my buddies using Sony A9 and Canon 1DxII bodies and capable lenses. I can compete, but it's not without some effort on my part and where we might only need to obtain a dozen really good images, I'll have to get my dozen from a sometimes smaller range of keepers vs what they might have to pick from. But at the end of the day, I'm still fresh and not tired from carrying around 500/4 and 600/4 full frame lenses! And I can sometimes get into situations with my smaller kit they simply cannot get to. It's a compromise I've learned to deal with and even take advantage of when I can. Not everyone would want to. I understand.
I appreciate your doing this comparison because I can use this to help people who are not really clear on their needs to understand what might be the main motivating factor for them. If it's misplaced fear that their images won't be good enough for print, then this may give them some confidence that sensor size alone is not going to be the pervading obstacle to getting good prints.
Thank you, Jeffrey. I like your comment.
I 'm also a pro-photographer , specialized in wildlife pictures around the world ! I use 1 Olympus OM-D M5 stabilized with a lot of Canon vintage FD lens ( 400mm, 300mm, 75-200mm, 85-250mm ) and also smaller Canon EF lens ( 80-200mm, 35-70mm ) + 2 Lumix GH2 with these lens or for filming with Lumix 100-300 Ois (stabilized ) . The picture ratio is exceptional with these cameras : the Four Thirds sensor format used in MFT cameras is equivalent to a 2.0 crop factor when compared to a 35 mm film (full frame) camera. This means that the field of view of an MFT lens is the same as a full frame lens with twice the focal length : 200mm=400mm .
I use also a Pentax K-5 ii for the full format with Sigma 120-400mm Apo ( no crop factor )
The results are the way you concluded , with cheaper lens and better handling cameras !
I'm grateful for the video and am not surprised by the results. If you have time, it would be interesting to see a similar comparison in low light or ultra high contrast scenes. Thanks again.
I use the Olympus OMD EM-1 Mk1 camera, and I can honestly say I cannot tell the difference between images taken on Full frame or Micro 4:3 sensors when printing up to A3+ after that I found you do get some falling off on the edges of the image, love the vlog and all the information that you give us, thanks
Thanks for sharing Colin, glad you liked the vid 👍🏼
With total respect, a hobbyist/enthusiast photographer at the top of his game can present a print taken on a DSLR and Micro four thirds of the same image up to a certain size say A3, and you would have to have the eyesight of a hawk to tell which image was taken on what camera, even a professional cannot make the call, and that is not my opinion that is a fact,
Dear immortal, why did you buy an A7RII if sharpness is irrelevant? Perhaps you thought detail and sharpness are unrelated? Not so. The rest of your comment exaggerates things. My EM5II has more dynamic range than a 5DII. In low light with my 1.4 prime I can shoot much slower shutter speeds than a full frame with a 1.4 prime, so I end up with *more* total light on the image and *less * noise and *more* shadow detail. In other situations the tables are turned. So it is not a case of one being better all the time. So, the differences, small as they are, are conditional.
Dear Immortal. Sarcasm and name calling are usually the first resort of sore losers. Prove that you are the exception.
Now now. It's painfully obverse that anyone who goes through so much equipment is struggling.
Never mind the fact that the M4/3 was handicapped by being cropped. @@tnargs57
Honestly didn't expect the difference to be visible. I checked the linear resolution (horizontally) of both sensors, and the difference is not that big. The Canon has about 1.3x more linear resolution than the Olympus. I would expect more of a visible difference if there was a 2x difference in linear resolution, which would necessitate comparing an 80MP camera to the Olympus. At that point, that's medium format, not full-frame. And the difference would be noticeable only with a big print of a subject with lots of details to look at, like a panoramic view of a city, where it's fun to look up close. A M43 camera certainly can create amazing high quality panoramas, tho. The only time it would matter is if you can only use one shot.
However, I wouldn't think megapixels are the advantage of full-frame. I don't own a M43 camera, but I do think they are really cool, just stating. I shoot full-frame because of low light/fast speed. I sometimes have to take shots in dark theatres of fast moving subjects (think Cirque du Soleil kinda stuff), using fairly high ISOs and fast lenses. I shoot with a Sony A7RIII. With that sensor, not only can I shoot a bit less narrow and crop in post to make it easier to follow the action, but I can underexpose on purpose so that stage lights don't make people's skin blow up and then push it in post to make more details appear from the dark. It's for that kind of shots I shoot full-frame. Not everyone needs that, but that's a compelling reason.
For that kind of photographs, FF is a no-brainer. A friend of mine shoots live bands and switched to FF because of that... especially because he insist publishing in colour. I think grain or noise does not have that impact on b/w photos.
thanks for the video, completely takes us away from the pixel-peepers gearhead videos we see all the time, well done for showing that there is no tangible difference as that print size.
Thanks Jamie, glad you liked it 👍
Great video, as always. I must say, from someone who works in marketing and prints on a large scale quite frequently, at the larger sizes the image quality doesn't really matter as much. When you print on a small scale, you might want something that's 300 dpi or more. On the larger scales, you could print at 100 dpi or less and not be able to tell the difference.
Thanks Mike, glad you liked it 👍
Being on the digital side of marketing, most of the images will end up being >500kb anyway too.
I have an image taken at Southwold harbour that someone was totally convinced must have been taken on a medium format camera because of the detail in the shot, It was actually taken with my little Canon M5 (24mp APS=C)
I work with similar printers and am not surprised by this test. You can get away with quite a lot with digital cameras these days. I reckon you would notice more of a difference if you printed at a larger size.
rarely print photos, my printer is only A4, I had an A3, but it died. Guess a 10 metre print could tell the difference, but not many printers that can do that size :)
Ummm, It seems there is a lack of understanding how printing works and how easy it is to upscale an image with no resolution loss. I can take a small Instax photo and scan it into my computer at 1200dpi with no loss of resolution. In fact it actually gained resolution. Then a 20” x 30” photo can be printed of it. An Instax photo is only 2” x 3” in size. Now that is just scanned at a high resolution at HOME. Now take this process and bring it into print lab with better scanners. You get the picture(pun completely intended) now?
Thank You for this video. I use a micro 4/3rds camera to do underwater photography and have concluded from your video and my experience that the lens makes the most difference.
You're welcome Tom 👍
Very interesting, thank you.
I’m a Fuji user so in the middle, but I looked long and hard before investing in a new camera system and in the end it was between Olympus and Fuji
You're welcome, glad it helped 👍
This has been the most astonishing priceless proff of how the full-frame v/s the 4/3 works.
For me, optics must be the ultimate word un photography. THANKS
I've been using a Panasonic G7 for the past year. I love it so much I'm about to buy the G9.
BTW I've done some great night time shots with my G7 and I've seen others take great night shots. It's all about the settings people not just your ISO.
Thanks for sharing this Rico :)
It's a great camera, you won't be disappointed!
From someone who really appreciates the build of Olympus Pro, I've been on the fence for years in a quest to replace my D7000 (of which I've only been marginally satisfied) and this has answered ALOT of internal questions. Though I still have uncertainties with low light performance of Olympus as it is one of my top 3 needs in an upgrade (fps and write speed being the other 2), this test puts to rest issues of resolution and micro 4/3's. Thank you.
You're welcome 👍
The School of Photography
As a footnote, there’s just no getting around the stellar low light, high ISO performance of high end Nikon bodies... this is tough. I’m actually considering the D6 as a last hurrah before committing full fledged to a performance mirrorless in the future (Leica SL2, Panasonic, etc...) at some other time in the future. What Olympus offers that is very important: non subscription raw image editor- an extremely important point to me!
@@kenmunozatmmrrailroad6853 Hi Ken, I've been dealing with the issue of the low light performance especially while I'm usually photographing night time events. Coming from a Nikon d7100 the m4/3 seems too of a compromise. Last year I found the limit of the crop sensor too. Had a fast f.1.8 prime with the crop but the dance event was in an almost dark tent in middle of a summer night. A colleague of mine had a FF Nikon brought in with a f2.8 zoom and the results were stunning compared to mine. In that situation the m4/3 would have been even worse.
I'd like to switch to a lighter or similar system tho. Be a ninja, thats alot easier with the smaller sensor cameras. Maybe a Sony FF and a legacy prime?
@@kenmunozatmmrrailroad6853 have you considered the Pentax k-mount system? They have small sharp fast primes, similar or better lowlight performance compared to Nikon and quite nice IBIS in every SLR. Did a pixel peep comparison between a canon FF (with a wideangle zoom) and a Pentax k30 with a wide sigma prime. The Pentax had more detail due the advantage mentioned before
Also the Pentax system is dying so you get them cheap second hand
Love my Land Cruiser but in the city I go with the Smart.
Wow finally we see print IQ with m43rds. Thank you for doing this. I knew, since I own that same kit with lens that looks like 12-40 f2.8 which btw isn’t pro glass. Interesting. Kill that myth thanks again. Oh for the commenter who said what he also looks in a camera is evf quality is one of the biggest deciding factors in purchasing. One of the reasons I switched to the Om1. You can’t make a great photograph if you can’t see clearly what you’re taking a picture of ❤❤
Thanks Joe 👍
You are a very kind interpreter and a talented photographer. I enjoyed both your photos and the way you explain...
Thanks Erdal, glad you liked it 👍
U r right Olympus camera is a beast ; the only area when It cannot compete with a full frame is when u will need to freeze any movement -street photography at the early evening and u need to push that iso in order to compensate for a faster shutter speed while you want to keep everything in focus let’s say f/8 -
This is amazing Marc! I never expected the prints for the olympus ... Awesome! I was planning to get a M43 camera. Thanks for this
Thanks Grid, neither did I to be honest!! Glad you liked it 👍
I hope you do more of this and maybe a highlight of the other olympus cameras 😊 Really love channel!
Thanks for you're support Grid, glad to have you on board 😊
I have just moved from using the Nikon D6 and D850 to Olympus OM-1 . I did it because of getting older and wanted less weight to carry around. I was very interested in this video. Thank you.
Thanks for sharing David :)
The difference is the printer.
I would have liked to see side-by-side comparison of the same scenes though.
Great comparison. As an m4/3 shooter, I'm not going to boast too much. But also note that the Olympus is further disadvantaged because when you shoot 3:2, it's using less than 20 megapixels. I will agree that if you included low light in the tests, the FF will look better. But it's not as if low light on m4/3 is unusable and to be avoided.
Seriously.. the Canon should have been put into 4:3 mode instead!
If you're shooting handheld still images in low light, the Olympus beats the Canon hands down. On a tripod or with fast motion in low light, the Canon wins every time.
Great video, it is so that I too have both these cameras ... :)))) And I found myself to use the Olympus more often because of the size and the weight.
It is just amazing. Also I feel that a lot it has to do with the lenses you used. Olympus has a first class glass ...
Thanks Libor, appreciate the comments and glad you like the video 👍
I am thinking of splitting the difference between M43 and FF by getting the much acclaimed Fuji XT3 with APS-C sensor. Great reviews and with the new sensor it seems like the way to go
Hi Marc: I really enjoyed your video. I have been shooting professionally with the Olympus OMD E-M1 MkII for about 8 months now, after years of full frame Nikon DSLR gear and APS-C Fuji mirrorless gear. I shoot editorial stock images and have licensed images from all three of the formats, (FX, DX, & M4/3s). I was not surprised by your results as I have been very happy with the image quality of the Olympus in good light. As some others have posted, that little sensor does struggle a bit in low light conditions. I can get reasonably clean images up to about 1250 ISO that I have no problem licensing to clients. I'll be venturing into the FX mirrorless realm for low light work in the future. But to be honest, probably 90% of what I shoot, that Olympus is up to the task.
Thanks for sharing this Rick and glad you liked the video :)
Recently got the same camera, have a few bridge cameras that are in the same weight bracket, looked at FF cameras and the weight was like not fun using it all day. Not a pro photographer, but as I also like macro, figured a heavy camera might not be the smartest move, will be getting the 60mm macro lens soon. Not tried much of the way of night shots and so picked a camera for day time use :)
Besides that, Rick, if a FF image is underexposed by 2 stops, the resulting noise will be equivalent to that of a FT (at the same ISO).
Hi what's are the Technics to shoot at low light in high iso?
Last week I took some outdoor portrait photos for a real estate agent. I mixed and matched my Panasonic GH5 and my Canon 5D Mark III. Her favourite pics were from the Canon - although she didn't know that. Why did she like the Canon? Because even with a Panasonic Leica 42.5 f1.2, I couldn't get the same subject isolation in the same environment. This is the only weakness of m43 for stills IMHO. For studio work and even for events, I prefer to use the Panasonic...
I think when a camera can take fantastic photos any improvements are going to be minuscule.
It's like eating a great Sunday roast. Gordon ramsay isn't going to be able to make it taste substantially better.
Diminishing returns and that.
This might be the best video I have watched all year. Brilliant. I am a Full Frame shooter, why??? Marketing and forums! Over the past few years I have noticed that when I challenge myself to determine which system is used to shoot which image (Flickr Explore) I simply cannot do it, and I am usually wrong.
👍
The m4/3 is actually 17.8 MP round up to tenths when you change from 4:3 to 3:2 aspect ratio. 20.4MP is in the native 4:3 ratio. I myself switched from FF and DX nIkon to Panasonic m4/3 and printed 16x20" of the same shot on all 3 sensor sizes, at that size I saw to difference in the print so I use m4/3 now. I would like to see what a 1 meter print would be like of a landscape taken by both cameras to see if it looks significantly different. I would expect maybe a little more detail in the higher MP print but likely not enough to tell unless very close.
Thanks Chris 👍
The detail you will see, is very dependent of the resolution (not the sharpness) of the lens used. Zuiko's are razor-sharp. I don't know about Leica from practical experience, but they have a legendary history, Like Zeiss and Schneider.
If a FT has 20 MP, the FF should at least have 40 MP to see a noticeable difference. The lens of the FF should also have a resolving power 4x of the FT lens (also in the edges).
When using a small aperture, diffraction sets in at a certain diameter, so FT at f/8 is slightly diffracted but FF at f/16 equally so. Both photo's will have the exact same DOF if the FOV is equal (thus i.e. using a 25mm on FT and 50mm on FF).
I didn’t look at all the comments but the one thing I see missing is cropping. If you are a cropper more pixels are going to be better. I am a cropper either changing the aspect ratio or fine tuning the out put image. I shoot with both and pick which camera is best for what I want to do for the shoot. One tool doesn’t do all jobs.
We love our Lumix G7 and prefer the micro four thirds system
Nice work ..i own a ff , apsc and i recently bought a gh5 for video.. but i now find myself using it for stills as well. I think people who have that " ff will always win ! Printing ? Who cares about printing!" Mentality , are the ones who spend way too much time in front of a pc zoomed in at 400% counting pixels
Thanks Randall, glad you liked it 👍🏼
Wow a lot of FF users really hated this video. One thing you didn’t mention was the dpi of the printer. Can it support 16x16 grey scale within a 600x600 dpi grid? Still I challenge anyone to tell the difference between a professionally shot image on either platform. And let’s not forget that people will be viewing these from an even greater distance. Very good demo. I’m going to be doing a video with all the printing math.
Glad you liked it Peter. This is UA-cam so the haters are to be expected I'm afraid, thankfully most of UA-cam viewers are not like that and take no notice of it. I would imagine it would print to those specs but I leave that up to printers, my job is to get the shot! Thanks 👍
I was a FF user and changed to fujifilm, however, there are caveats when it comes to using crop sensors. In areas, FF vs Crop will make NO difference what so ever.. but, when it comes to landscapes, portraits FF really does have the edge. We are now starting to see FF cameras falling into the same price bracket as crop sensor bodies, so really cost is unimportant, especially if you're professional.
The crop sensor is fantastic, especially for sports, wildlife and event work, plus generally speaking they are FAR cheaper to purchase at an entry level.
The reality is that FF will be for the short time coming much better for low light performance and will always give you the faster primes.
@@theschoolofphotography : no hate. Obviously, low ISO high DOF landscape, limited DR images would render quite similar on 4/3 or FF. But throw into some thin DOF, low light, landscape where you need to raise significantly the shadow and then you start to see differences. Those kind of tests where you try to normalize things and shoot within the shooting envelope of both, do not tell much. But where obviously FR shines is outside of smaller format shooting envelope. Too bad there was not any of such cases.
Nobody is saying that the extremes aren't catered for with larger sensors- that's why we still have MF. The argument that for most people 4/3 is more than enough, with other benefits.
Andrew C Just to clarify, if a camera with a smaller than FF sensor uses lenses made for that sensor then it is not a crop sensor. If you put an APS-C lens on a FF camera then you'll get a crop.
This is the best teaching video and make micro four thirds system survive
Which lenses were used on which cameras would have been useful too as the quality of the lens does matter.
Also taking the same shot with the different cameras might have been an even better comparison which was mentioned below.
I actually have a Panasonic G9 M4/3 and find the dual IS very good being able to take hand held pics with the Leica 100-400mm (200-800mm 35mm equivalent) for sports and birds.
For landscapes and other subjects I have the 14-140mm Panasonic lens (28-280mm 35mm equivalent).
agree. the same shot comparison would have been ideal.
Also the real advantage of a FF camera is high iso, and none of the photoes are made in a low light situation
You can see difference in GOOD LIGHT shots, even Galaxy and Iphone can do wonders. Late evenings is something where BIGGER SENSORS shine. But for sizes like upto A3 M4/3 is more then sufficient for top quality.
This video literally shows micro four thirds prints at roughly A1 size. They weren't distinguishable from full frame. Did you miss that? Heck, search for Nigel Danson, pro landscape photographer. He could scarcely see difference comparing Fuji medium format to Fuji APS-C in landscape prints with fine details at A2 size.
Alright! Now I'm fully confident of my M4:3 camera ;D
Thanks Gina, glad it helped :)
same reasons i picked m4/3 from panasonic thanks for video
You're welcome 👍
Thank you for keep my GAS in control, I use APSC Fujifilm, and I hope you shall make in a near future a similar video comparing APSC (Mirrorless) to the full frame Mirrorless, from September on the market will get the new Canon and Nikon FF Mirrorless, besides the already existing Sony models.. Good job.
Thanks Eduardo, glad you liked the video 👍
I love the controls of my Fujis, however I've been getting into video more and I find Fujis AF to be behind Sony and Panasonic.
The reason a shot full frame is the venue are very dark and with no flash I notice a difference between my crop and full frame sensor same settings. Same lens
Low light certainly is an advantage for FF. Also dynamic range perhaps.
I'd like small and lightweight but to take pics of sunsets and moon etc, so there is a conundrum there
very interesting. I think you would notice a difference if these were shot in low light or at night. May be try that one. I'm confident many would want to know.
Thanks Chagrin, a few people have asked this so it's a possibility that we will do this in the future. 👍
I have found from my own experience that apparent noise on a 4/3 at 400 is equal to 2000 on a Nikon d750.
definitely a difference, although I've heard some micro four thirds users say differently which is rubbish. I use a full frame Nikon d600 and also have an Olympus em10 Mark 2. comparing raw it's at least a couple of stops better in low light. the Olympus smooths out detail a lot more as well but it's still useable at high ISO.
Where the larger sensor is superior is in difficult situations, such as very low light and high contrast conditions. For this test you would have to enlarge much more to see the 4/3rds shot pixelate and show noise. You can also be much more creative with a FF.
I agree that there is functionally no difference between these two equipment setups. However, the lighting conditions definitely have an impact on this that you do not mention or acknowledge. I switched from APS-C to FF specifically because I was shooting in low light and the quality difference was quite significant. Even with today's better quality small sensors, the physics is still the same. Lower signal to noise ratios will still yield better results in low light situations. Still, if you do not spend a lot of time in low light, that Olympus package looks quite nice.
I have seen the same. I have sony a7iii and olympus em1-iii. I often do street photography at night. I have found that a7-iii remains visibly noise free upto iso 8000 whereas olympus yields similar result upto iso 1600.
Obviously both cameras take amazing photos. Both cameras are great for certain people doing certain things and as far as a print or image goes, it is very hard to find a difference by looking at them, which makes both valid for most photographers. I'd like to point out though, that what truly separates them besides low light shooting, is the ability to get closer to a subject either physically or in zoom. The crop frame APS-C/ micro 4/3 cameras allow you to use that 100 mm lens and have the same field of view as a 150 mm or 200 mm lens which is a great benefit to some. I would argue though that the full frame and anything larger benefits portrait and close up shooters, or shooter who have a small studio. While I can frame two images using different lenses to fill the frame in the same way for a portrait, a 50 mm lens on a micro 4/3 camera will give a certain rounded distorted face to my subject making them look chunkier and less flattering. I can get the composition of subject using a 100 mm on a full frame camera and that distortion is well controlled, giving a more pleasing look from the same shooting position. Medium format cameras would allow you to use even longer lenses and get the same field of view, giving even more pleasing facial features. Obviously cost goes up with each of the subsequent systems, but the right tool for the right job is always important, not that only one tool is the right tool for any one job. I think at the end of the day, what is most important is knowing your systems and understanding the strengths and weaknesses that they present, then being able to utilize them properly. If I shoot outside in the sun, all day long and don't need any super long fast lenses, a micro 4/3 system would always be a benefit if proximity made no difference, if however, I shoot sports at night and need to photograph a goalkeeper from 100 meters away, a full frame DSLR that has a system of fast super telephoto lenses is my best option. If I am a portrait photographer that works in my tiny spare bedroom shooting headshots, a larger sensor will probably give me the look I am after.
Thanks for the comments 👍
Wrong. 50 mm on m4/3 is the same Perspektive distorsion
3:16 Gramps wasn’t impressed by the drivers lack of knowledge for “right of way” at the zebra crossing hahahah
😂
I’ve just decided to sell my Olympus OM-D EM10mkii, because I didn’t get on with the handling. I loved the image quality and the aspect ratio. But what I found annoying with it became reasons not to take it out. I’ve taken great images with this camera. And the handling and it feels in your hand is far more important than the pixel count and the sensor size.
I use a Nikon D500, which has a 21mp APS-C sensor, even bigger the micro four-thirds. I am getting criticised all the time by landscapers for not using a 30+ MP full-frame camera.
(the reasoning being, you can crop into a full-frame image to improve the composition..I say, learn composition and get it right in-camera!)
Thank you for laying this to rest at last. You can go big with a sensor as small as micro four-thirds. QED, you can go big with APS-C...
Glad you liked it Paul 👍
I am croping my 24mp images and still get nice prints out of it. This video was not a comparison of micro 4/3 vs FX sensor, more about different pixelsize.
..."I say learn the composition and get it right in the camera" is a little light. It is forgetting that we might have to crop an image smaller for different reasons than the base composition. Some sites will only accept square images, some you'll need 3x2 format and others you'll be asked 4x3. What do you do with that ? I have an FF 3x2 native and I often compose with the 4x3 export format in mind for later where I will loose top and bottom or some of each, thus composing wider knowing that I might have to crop in post. If I was "getting it right in the camera from the start" as you suggest it would quiet mess up that perspective and my croping options for what I describe. Comments welcomed...
Ultimately, it is a personal choice with a huge array of variables. I research via such discussions to see what the limitations of each happens to be, for THAT is the ultimate choice. I have been shooting digital since my E-510 and E-1 days and both are good bodies to this day IF one shoots with their limitations in mind. There is not a one-size-fits all system... If you are happy with your results, that is all that counts, period. My dad shot Oly professionally most of his adult life, as well, after working with 35mm and 4x5 formats prior... I am only semi-professional but am always grateful when others enjoy and/or buy my work. I often see the "snobbery" and arguments, then look at the "experts" work and think, "So what?"... Some of the arguments are ridiculous and it's obvious in some of those cases that the "experts" haven't mastered their supposedly "superior" gear in the first place. Isn't subjectivity great? lol :)
A belated "thanks" for the discussion and video comparisons (yes, a few years late)... This was a nice presentation!
Wow, I am a big fan of M4/3 format and have enjoyed using my E-M1 Mk1 for a couple years now (enough that I sold off my Pentax K-5 kit). Given that, I am still a bit shocked that prints blown up to that huge size still didn't reveal a difference in detail given the pixel count disparity. Truly impressive.
However, I will also say that for broad daylight shooting, it's a very even playing field. Even as a big fan of the format, there are trade-offs. Had this shoot comparison consisted of low-light/night shots, it is possible the 5DIV might have provided some noticeably superior prints. Fine by me, the system still does everything I demand of it quite well, including low-light stuff (and I don't even have the Mk II).
Having done just that, I'd claim that "it depends". If you're shooting low light action shots, or from a tripod, the Canon wins. If you're shooting stills, handheld, the Olympus will win every time. Why? IBIS. I can shoot down to 2-4 seconds handheld. So I can (and do) shoot all kinds of low light at ISO200. The Canon's going to need 1/50s or whatever, so you're going to bang that ISO way up.
And that's pretty much always the different. Put that Canon on a tripod, it's going to win. They have those $20,000 lenses for pro sports that don't really exist for most systems (Nikon, I suppose, and Sony's built a few). Lenses that demand tripods. But I don't shoot from tripods, unless I'm shooting video. And even there: Olympus was offering better video than Canon in this same time frame, even though Olympus was hardly a video-oriented company. It's kind of like the EOS Cinema folks got control at Canon and made the crapify DSLR video. They're back on track with mirrorless... sort of. They're still one of the only companies limiting recording to 30 minutes on stills cameras, even in 2021.
I have a print on my wall , approx 100 x 60 cm , that was taken 10 yrs ago on an EOS 350d ( 8 mp from memory ) with a kit lens. It is a stunning image and is commented upon favorably by everyone who sees it. I am pretty much certain that any MFT camera in existence could capture a cleaner , clearer , image , not to mention my current full frame kit . When i find myself tempted by the latest and greatest , I stop and look at that picture .
Use whatever works for you and remember this , the vast majority of the most famous and impactful photographs ever created , were not taken on the latest , cutting edge ,multi megapixel imaging behemoths .
And I was wondering why my photos with my Canon 7D and M6 are so sharp. I was afraid to make big prints out of them.
I have a huge poster print of one of my old photos above my PC , every time I start thinking I need more megapixels or a larger sensor, I remember that image came from a heavily cropped (down to about 4 megapixels!) image from a Canon 50D and it looks absolutely great unless you're literally pressing your face to the glass.
I'm so tired of full frame nonsense. There are tons of pro photographers doing amazing nighttime work with micro 4/3. It's how you use the tool. Look up Olympus Live composite mode for lots of examples.
Thanks for the comments, glad you liked it 👍
"It's how you use the tool."
That's what i keep telling my girlfriend.
Exactly its die hard fans to full frame like there were die hard fans to film... They don't like change and will stay loyal to their camera like Iphone fans to Apple.
Let's all pause for a minute, and imagine a fabulous camera which has a sensor that is half the size of a 4/3 camera. Eventually, you come to realize, for a variety of reasons, that larger format cameras are better for a variety of technical reasons, virtually regardless of the mexapixels taken into account. Both Full Frame and DX cameras are suitable for different kinds of professional work, and some kinds of photography can almost be done interchangably between the two cameras. But if you're a wildlife photgrapher, then you sure as hell don't want to be using the sortsof gigantic telephoto lenses which the most common brands offer. (In particular, just Nikon and Canon). Same goes for sports photography. Use a full frame? Nah, just not the best of ideas there.
I'm using the GH5s with Voigtlander lenses and other Pentax, CANON, OLYMPUS FF Lenses with adaptors and love it
I have been using Olympus for many years, and will say this, what ever camera you use, if your happy with what you have that's fine.
I myself use the Olympus cameras as there light, easy to carry around, great for street photography, I now have the OMD 1 mkII and among my lens
the 12-40mm 2.8, and they are really good, I mean really good, and I went to japan in september after two hours of arriving, my son and I went to
The Shibuya Crossing at night and it poured down with rain, I mean pissed it down, the camera and lens got a real soaking, but no problem at all.
As much as I like full frame cameras, for me the Olympus, is an outright winner, well thats my thoughts anyway, but it's always interesting the hear
different opinions, low light performance has also improved up to at least iso 1600, the battery is bigger and will last nearly all day, with a decent grip.
Oh yes and on last item, image quality is excellent, anyway, happy new year, and lets hope its a great one, good night.
Thanks for sharing Clive 👍
You make an important statement here, Clive!
As with all things, being it a musical instrument, a camera, paintbrush... or whatever: if you feel good using it, you will get better results.
If one takes a look at the original prints by let's say Henry Cartier Bresson, realizes that sharpness, or even focus sometimes are quite irrelevant for the strenght of the image itself. It seems to tell us to not waste time on secondary questions...
True, in THAT genre (photojournalism or documentary work), image "sharpness" is indeed secondary to the "story". However, for certain genres, such as landscape and product photography, image sharpness and detail retention is a MAJOR criterion for a successful (and publishable) image. A "soft" image of a product would simply not make it to print.
And the Lumix g9& OLY em-1 have a multi-image 80mp mode perfect for product or anything that doesn't move.@@stevelink21
I wonder what would happen if Henri Cartier Bresson shoot a 4x5 or 8x10 like Ansel Adams or Edward Weston did, though. And vice versa :D
I shoot as a photojournalist. I want sharp photos. I will use the photo that tells the story, but if I have a better image that is clear and sharp it will beat out the out of focus shot. There is a reason people buy good glass and good cameras. MFT is not for the pro as much. You can use it as a good photographer will get photos with anything, but they will get more shots and better shots with better gear.
Makes sense... I was in a top notch landscape photo art gallery the other day, in Laguna Beach Ca, where pictures were quiet amazing (and unfortunately selling in 4 digits numbers) and the guy was using a D850 with top glass for his work, I thought he was using a medium format at first. Still, I should have asked him his thoughts on going with a m4/3 for his next shots, but I didn't want to be kicked out with tar and feathers... Just teasing, m4/3 today are great cameras that will do fantastic job in most occurences.
Î shoot full frame and aps-c (6d &7d) . In most circumstances , the results are indistinguishable . Assuming you get the exposure roughly correct and shoot at sensible ISOs , both systems are capable great things . I tend to prefer the full frame for it's cleaner high ISO performance ,but seeing how I use the lowest ISO I can get away with , this seldom comes into play. A major reason for my FF preference is that in my case , it is (counter intuitively) my lighter ànd less bulky option.
very nice comparison. Those who believe m43 cannot produce pro results might want to consider switching to an 8x10 film camera since their full frame cameras are obviously using an inferior size sensor and only the 8x10 film camera will produce superior results.
I've got an IQ back which begs to differ
Technically, micro four thirds refers to the lens mount while four thirds is the sensor format.
I’m an engineer and this is not a very scientific comparison, however, your idea of showing the final print is a polite way of telling us that a real professional can use any of these cameras to create artistic photos. Technology improves over time, but real artwork lasts forever. Today’s m43 can certainly outperform an old generation FF spec-wise but so what. There are still many photos hanging in galleries shot with even a first gen FF DSLR.
Hi thanks for the comments. If you want scientific comparisons you're on the wrong channel I'm afraid. This is a real life comparison. Hope that helps 😊
@@theschoolofphotography Yes it was very helpful indeed! Glad I watched the whole thing till the end. Btw, I used to shoot with FF but changed to m43 simply because of the size. I travel a lot and like to carry at least 3 lenses which would be too heavy if using my old FF.
kazuki naked people who are
I consider there is little difference between photos of FF and 4:3 in depth of picture. Thank you for this video!
You're welcome Valeriy, glad you liked it 😊
It is not about megapixels but I think you might see difference when it comes to depth of field taking photos in low-light situation and the dynamic range
All of these photos have been taken in a perfect lighting conditions .
I own and use a Nikon D3300. It’s literally the cheapest DSLR, Nikon sells. Somehow, it’s still an amazing camera. Depending on the lens, it gives amazing quality, sharpness and colours.
A part of me really wants a D7500, D500, Z6 or something even more expensive and there would be benefits of having one of these cameras. But when I’m in a reasonable mood, I’m well aware that I don’t need anything more than what I have, since I’m only a beginner/intermediate photographer.