You guys did EVERYTHING wrong!! Just kidding!... For those interested, it is worth noting that the smaller sensor did not have more depth of field actually because of the sensor size, but because the crop factor forced you to move farther from the subject to get the same composition. Depth of field is the same if you don't move or change aperture/focal length, but of course, you'd crop a lot of your subject away.
I've actually only had apsc (and super 35 for video), I suppose because I've mostly done landscape and street photography and I didn't really want to blur out the details... and because budget. I wouldn't object to a full frame one day.
Actually the only one that needed to be farther away was the Hassy where the 35mm equivalent is around 70mm. For the others the equivalents are 7D II = 56mm, GH5 = 50 and (obviously) the A7r3 is already 50mm. So there is no significant distance needed except for the Hassy.
Yes, but that is because the use different focal lengths, And Carl Raetzsch comment was clearly stating what will happen if you keep the same focal length, distance and aperture for every lens, for example a 50mm, and he was right in his statements.
Sorry for the typo in the video. We actually were using the Canon 7D Mark II not the older Canon 7D model! We forgot to mention our lenses, thank you for asking. Hasselblad- Hasselblad XCD 90mm f/3.2 Canon 7D Mark II- Tamron 35mm 1.8 GH5- Panasonic 25mm 1.7 A7r3 Canon 50mm 1.2 with a metabones adapter
The tagging done. Sure, all of them are good, but its hard to compare without an initial matching according to exposure and WB, plus UHD resolution on UA-cam (for a higher bitrate). I would prefer the comparison where the closest profile were selected + made some basic correction in Lightroom according to WB and contrast to match the histogram. Also the similar class lenses should be used. Then to make the 2nd comparison with the same images after hard stretching in Lightroom (extremely rise shadows, and lower highlights, boost saturation)... So it will really show difference between sensors and the size. You can also borrow some techniques from the video "Blackmagic Pocket Camera 4K vs Arri Alexa" by wolfcrow.
What lenses were used? Was the distance to subject the same? Were there any crops done post to make the framing the same? The background compression all looked similar enough that I am going to assume they were all equivalent focal lengths, but I believe that would have changed the distance to subject which would have impacted the amount of falloff.
Sorry we forgot to post the lenses, here they are: Hasselblad XCD 90 mm 5 3.2, on the Canon 7D mark II we used the Tamron 35mm 1.8, on the GH5 we used the Panasonic 25mm 1.7, and on the A7r3 we used the Canon 50mm 1.2 lens with a metabones adapter. The distance from subject to camera was not the same, but the size of the person in the frame was. It wasn't about cropping afterwards, when we were there on a standard equivalent of a 50mm lens we made her head and body size as similar as we could in order to judge depth of field. Hope that helps!
So with the GH5 you used the cheapest MFT lens available, were the other lenses the cheapest for their respective sistems? why don't use the Olympus 25mm f1.2 instead? the results would have been a lot better.
A few things you might want to consider in your next comparisons: Adjust the apertures according to the sensor size and get the best MFT currently available, which is in my opinion the Oly OMD EM1 MKii. I went through quite a LOT of different brands/sensor sizes and finally ended up with the EM1 Mkii for Landscape/Macro/Portrait. If some customers order LARGE prints, I simply shoot in HighRes Mode which gives my friggin 80 Megapixels RAW. It is pretty easy to spot wannabe pros when they complain about DOF on mft.
In my own testing, I found the Fujifilm APS-C sensors performed significantly better than the latest Canon APS-C sensors. The Fujifilm is actually much closer to Canon full-frame in terms of ISO performance. The Fujifilm noise was also more pleasing and almost film-like. I currently use an A7 III though (replaced my Canon M50).
Sorry that you didn't find the comparison helpful. What cameras would you have liked to see instead? We are always open and interested to test cameras that you want to see!
If someone knows what they doing, they can make any of those cameras perform well. No one shoots for equivalence, they shoot whats in front of them with whatever they have in hand. They then need to make to best possible creative decisions to create the best possible photos. If the photos turn out great, nothing else matters.
Your channel does such great videos. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE consider uploading in 4K. I know you don't think it makes a difference with UA-cam compression but it really does show more detail.
f/1.7 isn't extremely fast on Micro 4/3 - f/1.2 and f/0.95 lenses are generally available and are not overly expensive. Similarly, there are faster lenses than f/1.7 for APS-C as well. Also, did you mention which lenses specifically you were using and I missed it? On the Hasselblad, I'd guess it's the 90mm f/3.2 and for the Sony, I'm guessing maybe the Mitakon 85mm f/1.2... but since focal length plays a factor in depth of field, that would be a useful thing to know. I've definitely seen smoother/shallower depth of field with APS-C and Micro 4/3 cameras than what those sample pictures showed. Also, the ISO comparison is potentially somewhat skewed by the fact that you normalized all lenses to the same small aperture. Sure, if I'm shooting at f/7 with a micro 4/3 camera at dusk, it's going to be grainier than shooting at f/7 with a medium format sensor at dusk... but if I can only open the medium format up to f/3.2 and I can open the Micro 4/3 camera up to f/0.95, the difference will be substantially less. It's no surprise that ISO 1600 is noisy on the smaller sensors - but as you pointed out, the depth of field will also be substantially different. If you open up the aperture 4 stops on the micro 4/3 (f/8 on the bigger sensor would be f/2 if I'm not mistaken) to match the depth of field of the bigger camera, you could be shooting a very clean ISO 100.
Sorry we forgot to mention the lenses in the video, here's the list of lenses we used: Hasselblad- Hasselblad XCD 90mm f/3.2 Canon 7D Mark II- Tamron 35mm 1.8 GH5- Panasonic 25mm 1.7 A7r3 Canon 50mm 1.2 with a metabones adapter Thanks for your comments. It's great to have this dialogue going on, there's always more to learn and to test out.
Got it! Thanks for the response! So the Hasselblad was using something with a FOV close to that of a 70mm lens on FF and the others were all using closer to a 50mm on FF. That's also potentially relevant! :) Also, ouch on the lens for the GH5 - it only gets a $150 low-end consumer lens and it's not much better for the 7D which gets a mid-range consumer lens where the Sony gets a $1500 Canon prime and the Hasselblad gets a $3,200 one. It'd be interesting to see this comparison with faster/nicer lenses for the Panasonic and Canon and everything using a focal equivalent closer to 70mm (or with the Hasselblad with a focal equivalent closer to 50mm).
@@EatsTooMuchJam You are really pointing out the price tag of a m43 and a medium format lens? To show what? This lenses cannot be compared by its price! There where also shots with f7 when the lenses are all good in sharpness (also low end lenses) and the difference was quite obvious! I understand the differences of comparing different focal lenses, but 20mm for MF does really matters here (sharpness, low light noise)? Depth of field is of course influenced by the focal length, but then you could compare the cameras without MF! Another fact: Canons old 50mm f1.2 lens (made since 90') is an old construction with a low resolution. I bet that the panasonic lens is sharper than this Canon lens
@GEKO I didn't say anything about the sharpness of any of the lenses, did I? I was talking about the speed of the lenses and the FOV equivalents - if it's fair to pay $1500 for a 50mm f/1.2 lens (one of the fastest full-frame lenses) to use on the Sony, it's fair to pay $500 for something like the SLR Magic 25mm f/0.95 to use on the Micro 4/3 - that's about the same field of view and one of the fastest lenses available for that format. It's a little bit insipid to put a slower lens on a smaller sensor and then say "the smaller sensor can't get shallow depth of field like the bigger sensor can." Were there any other words that you wanted to put into my mouth to pick pointless arguments or are we done here?
Once again, the right hammer for the right job prevails! My primary camera is the Pentax 645z, and I love it, but I would never use it for day to day shooting, I have a micro 4/3 for that.
The Hasselblad XQD is 44x33mm, there are 54x40.5mm sensors available for Hasselblad H, Phase One and digital backs for things like the Contax 645 and Hasselblad V. So, not the largest sensor on the market.
I agree that fullframe is the sweet spot but your work isn't fair for MFT. If you want a deep DOF indoor per example you can shoot a 17mm 1.2 (34mm equiv.) at 2.8 with the more efficient IBIS benefit. MFT is today in ISO performance like a APS-C and in deep DOF is fantastic. For another view, if you use a Oly 45 1.2 you can achieve a beautiful shallow DOF and a perfect focus. Try this kits: MFT 17mm 1.2 25mm 1.2 45mm 1.2 Fullframe 35mm 1.4 50mm 1.4 85mm 1.4 Now you compare all things, DoF, shallow and deep, ISO, rate AF, size, price, etc.
Take the focal length & aperture value and multiply by it's crop factor, you'll get the depth of field conversion in full frame terms (using similar framing): Medium Format (X1D): 63mm @ f7.1 * 0.79 ~ 50mm @ f/5.6 Full frame: 50mm @ f/5.6 * 1 ~ 50mm @ f/5.6 APS-C: 33mm @ f/3.5 * 1.5 ~ 50mm @ f/5.3 MFT: 25mm @ f/2.8 * 2 ~ 50mm @ f/5.6
Any of the many lenses with focal lengths between 42.5 mm and 75 mm would have been more natural choices. In particular the Pana-Leica 42.5 mm f1.2, the Olympus Pro 45 mm f1.2, the Voigtlander 42.5 mm f0.95 or the Olympus 75 mm f1.8. If the idea was to use more of a budget lens, then the Sigma 60 mm f2.8 is widely praised and both the Panasonic 42.5 mm f1.7 and the Olympus 45 mm f1.8 are also considered to be very good portrait lenses.
Peter made some good suggestions, and I'd add the Sigma 56mm F/1.4 which should be out any minute now (actually, any of the three Sigma Contemporary 16/30/56mm F/1.4 lenses would suit portraiture for different levels of context and framing - that could be a video in itself... ;)
I'm confused on why when you're supposed to be comparing sesnor size, everything else on each rig was different too? Focal length, aperture, camera brand, lens brand, lens quality/cost. Surely to get a pure experiment (or as pure as conceivably possible) you'd want to keep as many of the other factors the same as possible? Awesome, you just compared a bunch of different lenses, camera bodies and sensors. What do we learn from that? Ummm... nothing? Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no pro, just confused by your 'Sensor Size Comparison' experiment.
they setup this gear to match equivalent focal lengths, they didn't mention it at all for some reason. They are all giving a roughly 50mm field of view for each respective sensor size, which is a better test of the differences in sensor size rather than just going for the longest and fastest lens...
Thanks for the videos, been following you for years and you been a referent for my own youtube channel, i think you neglected a few things that matter a lot and simplified a bit too much this video ( i guess to reach an audience that doesnt knows much about medium format ) Basically using non equivalent lenses can change a lot the results in terms of DOF, You got right the equivalence on Depths, there are 4 stops between a 4/3 and the X1D ( i use both ) and 2 Stops between 4/3 and 35mm and APS-C falls in between. So basically 2 stops between X1d and 35mm is acurate. The point you missing is Tridimensionality, the benefit of medium format is not about how much area you get in focus but what happens after the focused area is finished. The transition from focus to unfocus, that's where the magic happens. 4/3 have next to 0 on that matter, if you take a very close up of something you will see that it takes long distance to get whats behind out of focus, this improves towards the 35mm but it makes a huge jump on the medium format ( specially giant jump if you work with full medium format sensors ). One thing that makes 4/3 really great is that you need less light to achieve same DOF, so let's say i want the DOF i get with the sony at 5,6 i will have to put my 4/3 ( olympus in my case ) at just 2'8. Now if you add flashes in the mix, and i needed 2000w power to achieve this photo with the sony, i can do the same with 500w on the olympus. Basically means i can work at lower power settings, and that can mean a lot more pops per battery or a much faster refresh time on my flashes, or saving a lot of money on flash Ws. i agree that 35mm is the most "versatile" in terms of DOF, but i think the difference with 4/3 is much less than people thinks. Thanks for the videos :)
Thank you for this comparison which makes sense for someone who already has an idea of the different systems. Though, it was pretty unfair towards the (already relatively limited) GH5. You used a 150€ lens and compared it with lenses almost 10 times more expensive. For a portrait with shallow depth of field you would use a longer, and if affordable, faster lens (a 42.5 f0.95 would still be cheaper than the canon lens you used). And the landscape shot would never require f7 in low light (as you showed, 2 stops brighter would still grant a larger depth of field than ff and mf). At ISO400 everything would have looked better. If you'd find the time, it would be GREAT if you'd try another test and challenge yourself to get the best out of every system. Of course medium format and fullframe would win the portrait-contest, but it would be very interesting how close you could get with apc and mft. Thanks for many very helpful videos!
Guys, this is pointless. Just pick up whatever camera you have, create beautiful art and be happy. Life is too short for arguing about meaninglessness.
We definitely don't want to start arguments, but we do encourage that everyone use the camera they have to their fullest potential! Thanks for being a voice of encouragement :)
I use the GH5. I have tested the Sony a7rii and the Canon 7D mark ii. All three ranging in my budget. I picked the GH5 because of the color science, lenses, and great image quality. Achieving shallow depth of field is very easy and all it requires is a good lens choice. There are some lenses that have an aperture of 0.95 but I roll with a Sigma 30mm 1.4. I get outstanding footage and photos with it. So I disagree with you that sensor size matters. It really doesn't matter as long as the user knows what they are doing. Great test though but the GH5 and Sony are far more versatile. Canon sucks and Hassel blad is out of my price range. Hope this helps with someone picking up a Micro Four Thirds camera. You can't go wrong with this choice. Plus you can see the videos and photos I take with my GH5. Not hating on full frame just everyone has a preferance.
You're very right about everyone having a preference, that's exactly why we love hearing about your cameras and experiences. The GH5 is a great camera for sure!
@@stevemckenzie4731 Well I wasn't talking about that. Of course you can calibrate your monitor or input luts to make a look. I wasn't talking about the monitor. I was talking about the color science that comes off the sensor. Basically the "Look" or "Logs." If you take a closer look at the video comparisons The Slanted Lens beautifully executed. You can see that all the colors are different. Raw images that very in color. For example everyone likes the Canon colors/look or the Sony colors/look. This is what I mean by Color Science. Used by engineers who make the cameras color profiles. But like I said everyone has a preference. I like Lumix color science and I wish it was more of an Arri Alexa color. But all I'm taking about is what comes off the sensor before you start editing to make your look. Not hating but calibrating your monitor is true as well.
what an insightful video! people put so much value on gear today! thanks for sharing this great content with us and i really really enjoyed watching this!
Im.confused by your comment at the end where you say: sensor size might not matter the way you thought. But throughout the video you are saying how cameras fell apart in some shots. Would love to understand what you meant by that? Thanks
With the ISO testing, we were surprised at how the Canon 7D Mark II as well as the GH5 was super grainy. Also with the GH5 we noticed that it struggled to give a shallow depth of field. Just some different variations for the cameras that weren't based on the sensor size, and more of just the overall performance of the camera and the lens we used. Hope that answered your question!
Dof is got nothing to do with camera or sensor size, it is all about lens. Lens design that got to do with field of view, aperture, element formula but mostly it is about the actual size between the element from front to back and the entrance pupil. Same lens fov and aperture for the same purpose let say 35mm camera, might have dof differences and different dof curve between focus distance. Of course the most important is the distance between the object on focus and the lens itself. The bigger the size of lens element diameter in general, the bigger the image created, it got to do with the purpose for what format of lens it is for. Meanwhile a sensor just capturing the image projected by a lens, the differences is how big the sensor capture the image, almost whole, just half or quarter . Using the same lens, for the same framing, bigger sensor will need to get closer while smaller sensor need to go further, so the dof will be different, but again it is because the distance of object is different. Noise happened when not enough data send by pixel sensor cell. Each sell define what kind of colour represented by a pixel. A sensor cell catch a light that transform into electric current as data on rgb mixture. Kind like solar power charging the cell. The more the light capture, the more current it send, the more accurate data of colour until it is too much and become too bright start to clipping. Or no data at all as black. This not enough data on some cell or not enough current from the cell make the data corrupt, so when it boosted in the engine with cranking the iso up, you start having noise. Apart from the light capture, the current send is up to 2 things, the size of the cell and technology of the cell itself. So if you know the basic how a camera and lens works, it is not hard to know when you can push the iso and knowing your noise limit in certain setting and condition, regardless what camera you use.
Any chance you could in the future add the Fuji XFT2? No, it is not a FF but very sharp up how does it compare to the others when using the native lens.
yes, it is...from a Canon 5D3/4 and L-lenses. I do miss the FF but as far as DOF I do not see a lot of differences shooting w Fuji F2.8 and F4 glass. Just do not miss the weight. I truly prefer the Mirrorless camera....battery life w Fuji sucks. I would send some images but no link to do so. All my recent images on my instagram.com/tcgibson7/ are taken with the Fuji XT2 and 70-200 and 24-70 equivalents.
Thanks for the comparison. It's a lot of work so it is much appreciated. 1 I wish you would have taken the time to adjust the exposure in the first set of tests - Panasonic was overexposed making the comparison more difficult 2 It was really good to have the building on first set to make depth of field easier to compare 3 I did not find anything surprising (except the landscape noise comparison of GH5 and two other cameras) Too many people forget to mention, when desiring to blur the background for a portrait, that for smaller sensor sizes, you can easily get more blur by going to telephoto, especially simple with a good zoom lens such as with the 70mm-200mm equiv /F2.8 for the GH5 for example 4 While I use the GH5 for video, I much prefer the full sensor size of my Canon 5D II for stills - so I'm in agreement with your opinions about full sensor size cameras usefulness 5 Finally, as I already said, your tests confirmed much of what I already understood about the effect of sensor size on various aspects of the image. Once again THANKS VERY MUCH
You make some very great points, Dan. We'll be sure to make an effort to normalize the exposure and framing for all test shots of each camera in future tests!
To compare apples with apples you HAVE to take into consideration the sensor size and the crop factor and multiply it to the aperture....otherwise you have a "fruit salad" rather than a fair comparison.
In my humble opinion, a very misleading comparison with a very poor technical analysis and setup. Too over-simplified. You did not even consider that different photographers (amateur or pro) have different needs, styles or approaches when selecting a camera and sensor size. I'm afraid some people could make a bad use of their limited cash to buy the wrong camera based on this comparison.
@@TheSlantedLens he's right that was a shitty video. Besides if you can't shoot prifessionaly with a gh5 you really need to do something else. One of the best camera out there for content creators
My digital cameras are the 7DII and 5DIII, which as a purely stills photographer who needs the build suit me nicely. You kept referring to the "7D" but I couldn’t work out whether you were talking about the original or the mark II. (I’ve just seen your comment re what model now, thank you) I mainly use mine for wildlife but when the light is low the full frame 5DIII does have the advantage. I do subscribe to the theory, that for wildlife, within reason a noisy sharp image is better than a noise free unsharp image, but 2000 ISO on the 7DII is my max especially with a longer lens. I think light gathering ability is also very important for landscape and wildlife, where the crop sensor needs an ISO of 2000 the full frame might only need 1000. Thus it’s a double win, lower ISO from a camera that handles higher ISO better. So it’s not only ISO performance but at which point you need to raise it. With medium format, I think we are definitely still at a point where film has some distinct advantages as well as the usual disadvantages. Amongst the advantages are cost and size of sensor (negative). In common use there are cameras that give much bigger negs, 67 is very much a norm. As for cost, how much is the X1D landscape kit again? I always like how you set out your tests and experiments, you never claim they are scientifically accurate, but you conduct them as photographers and videographers. As always a brilliant video, thanks for the effort and expense you went to.
Thanks Mark! Sorry for the confusion about the 7DII, it is the newest 7D not the first one. That's an interesting point that you bring up in regards to having a noisy sharp image as opposed to a noise-free unsharp. We definitely noticed how the full-frame did have an advantage on the crop sensor with the low light tests we did. Great information, thanks for sharing with us.
Good idea to test. I too had thought that aps-c sensor size was possibly a sweet spot. A lot depends on what one values - ultra hi definition, croppability, shallow dof and subject separation, size, weight and cost, not to mention portability and convenience of operation, let alone availability of glass? Take your pick and then see if it meets expectations! So you were always set to fail in some eyes and thus open to brickbats. Anyway my take is that a hi-res, biggish sensor is probably always going to prove difficult to beat. If one can afford the kit and carry the heft then we can each go as far as we see fit. You didn't upset me, as a recent convert to a Sony A7Riii with fast prime glass (I just love the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f1. 8 - compact and very sharp with reasonable subject separation). It feels to me as if I made a pretty sweet choice. Yet I'm aware we all seek reassurance post investment (post cognitive dissonance), suffer from confirmation bias and so are more likely to respond favourably to supporting affirmation. Or visa versa. Bait for the various 'tribal fanboys' perhaps? Sorry I didn't leave a bitter, twisted angry comment, as requested - I leave that to others better versed in harsh criticism and profanity.
Thanks for sharing with us! We know that people tend to have strong opinions about their cameras and their lenses! We love to hear everyone's insight. We use the a7r3 a lot for our BTS footage, so we agree it's just a great camera.
Thank you for that comparison, for me was interesting. But... To bad that you chose 7D as a model of aps-c. Much better choose would be nikon D500 or fuji xt2. Maybe another time :) Thank you
For starters, the X1D is not the largest digital sensor you can get out there, the sensors Phase One uses are bigger than what you find in both the X1D and Fuji GFX line. Second, it seems you used the 90mm on the hasselblad which is 71mm in full frame equivalence but on everything else you used a 50mm equivalent lens, thats going to effect the results for the hasselblad in terms of DOF so you should have gone with their 65mm f2.8 as it is a 50mm equivalent lens.
Rather than just showing depth of field, I would have loved to seen an emphasis on comparing equivalent field of views and the differences in lens compression. They are all about a 50mm FOV but how they compress the background and facial features are different. Still I love seeing this type on content!
1. Lens collection; biggest bang for your (substantial) bucks in getting versatility 2. Sensor Size 3. Camera Body Maybe switch 2 and 3. But #1 is easily the most important. There are just SO MANY good camera bodies out there today. You could walk into a camera store blindfolded and randomly bump into one.
I would be curious to see a dollar for dollar comparison, i.e. an older medium format sensor vs. a similarly priced but newer full frame, etc. I shoot a Mamiya 645 film camera and I'm tempted by the older Mamiya/PhaseOne digitals, but I'm concerned the image quality may be no better if not worse than my Canon 5D MkIII.
yes, probably, but I was thinking more about 8:20 where closing aperture so much was unnecessary for a small sensor. anyway, you made a great comparison, I hope viewers understand this equivalence stuff.
Yes, I think it's kinda weird comparison. For noise test you should use aperature that gives same depth of field for each camera. For landscape you don't need to go down to f/7.0 with M43 sensor. Of course it have more noise that way. And also, why use old 7D to compare noise on different sensor, is already 9 years old technology.
The Slanted Lens yes indeed! Just saying that you would just have a negligeable difference like Zach Arias would say between a ‘modern’ apsc and a full frame.
there are two sensors in medium format, X1d has the cropped one, 44x33 ( much bigger than a 35mm sensor ) but the H6 100 has the real medium format sensor which mesures 53.4x40mm basically you have aproximately the same difference between 35mm and x1d than between x1d and h6 100
guys. sensor size does not have a direct influence on DOF. it's just science. actual;ly MFT sensor produces slightly shallower! DOF than FF. there are many articles about this it has to do with the circle of confusion which contains more pixels in the case of MFT. I can send you a link to a good explanation if you wish. but at any rate 25mm f/1.4 on MFT produces the same DOF as 25mm f/1.4 on FF !!! or actually a bit shallower :-) when you compare FOV 25 MFT == 50 FF you need to doublew the aperture for the correct DOF so 25mm f/1.4 MFT --> 50mm f/2.8 FF (DOF wise).
thanks for sharing the science with us! we definitely aren't math or science people haha.
6 років тому+2
@@TheSlantedLens You are laughing at yourself that you don't know the science behind about what you are talking about and at the same time have no problem missleading people with your conclusions... embarrassing. :(
The A7III does significantly better than the A7RIII. But the Sony bodies do outperform their Canon counterparts - excluding the 1DX MkII. Consistently more details on the A7RIII but it can be perceived as noisier. You can trade that resolution for noise reduction making it quite a bit better than its 24MP competition.
Yeah, I get the impression that with Hasselblad you are paying for lenses that have been moulded on the thighs of Amazon women or something. They are a rich person's play thing beyond the practicality of us mere mortals.
I think this comparison would have been better if you chose to use cameras with as similar a pixel pitch as possible. The 42MP A7RIII full frame sensor has a much smaller pixel pitch than the 50MP Hasselblad because the medium format sensor is so much larger (4.51 microns vs. 5.3 microns). Additionally, the 20MP 7DII has less than half the megapixels of the A7RIII but the sensor size is not half that of the full-frame (4.1 micron pixel pitch). Finally, the GH5 with micro 4/3 sensor and 20MP has a pixel pitch of 3.34 microns, the smallest of the bunch. I think a better comparison would have been the X1D (5.3), the Canon 5DIV (5.36), Nikon D500 (4.2), and Olympus OM-D E-M10III (3.74). I think these are a much better close approximation of pixel density and comparison of the impact of sensor size on image characteristics.
Thanks for sharing with us your thoughts! We are always looking to see what other camera comparisons we can do. We didn't consider the pixel pitch of each camera in this round, but will keep it noted for our next go!
Nice video! But the audio at the beach... 😂😜 For a future sensor size discussion, auto focus should also be a factor. With mirrorless, the difference between focusing at f1.4 FF and aps-c is huge in low light! Also, an idea for a video that I would like to make, but don't have the resources for, is a best combo comparison. The A6500/Sigma 30mm f1.4 is a good start. I would love to find similar performance in the FF world, still haven't!
Yeah beaches are not a great place for doing speaking bits haha. Thanks for bringing that up, we didn't even think to cover autofocus.. Do you use the A6500 for your shoots?
The Slanted Lens Yes, I use the A6500 with the Sigma 30mm as my B-cam/handheld. It basically becomes a zoom lens with clear image zoom, which is useful in bringing life into the scene since the talent is always sitting down 😁
A few months ago I changed from a D500 APS- C system and Olympus EM1 mark II M43 system to a single system based on a Sony A7III and A7II full frame, as I required better low light capability. I was always happy with the depth of field produced by my APS-C and M43 cameras (I have owned a few of each), because I am not a fan of really shallow depth of field. Lenses greater than f2.8 hold no interest for me. I phototgraph wildlife almost exclusively and a greater depth of field is often an advantage.
Ah, that's a great thing to point out. Depending on the line of photography work you do, you'll definitely favor different things in the camera and the lens. Thanks for sharing with us!
The idea is great, the shots illustrate the principle nicely. However. Sensor size matters, with equal megapixels, as it gives larger individual pixels that can measure light more easily. But that measurement is also determined by the camera motherboard, electronics, processor, firmware. The video illustrates this when the APS-C does worse than micro-4/3rds. Sensor size does not dictate depth of field (DoF). Focal length dictates DoF, with aperture. Transitively, sensor size implies DoF because a larger size sensor needs a longer focal length to get the same image angle as the lens on the smaller sensor. Your physics teacher would give you a fail for talking sensor size DoF though. Comparing the Hassy 90mm with the Canon 50 is a tiny bit unfair. The Hassy has a 0.8 crop factor so its 90mm compares to a theoretical Canon 62.5 (which has less DoF than the 50)
35mm on Canon APS-C is 56mm EQ also 90mm on Hasselbald is 71mm EQ => which are different than the others. In real world usage you to have step back for the same picture => which will lead to less "background blur" in real-world scenario, than you presented in the comparison. For better comparisom you should use 30mm lens with Canon APS-C and 65mm on Hasselblad.
I've been Sony the past decade because of the technology and the flexibility it gives me as they point out. Once they hit actual medium format digital (Actual 6x6 sensor size), maybe that would be better than the Hasselblad or fuji G-format. But I do love to have a gh5 for compact run and gun video 😊 To each his own and happy that there are a lot of choices in tee market!
there are definitely so many cameras on the market, it's so hard to choose sometimes! great that you found ones that work for you, that's really our goal is to help people to choose the camera that works best for them :)
You are using an old 7D to represent apsc cameras? That is very unfair. The sensor on that is built for speed, not ultimate quality, it is a wildlife and sports camera. The 80D is far better and most would argue that any Canon sensor is less good than its Sony apsc equivalent. A very bizarre choice.
@@TheSlantedLens No I am a Canon user, I saw on the video it was the 7D mark ii, but my earlier comment still applies, it is an ageing camera with a sub-par sensor, even by Canon standards. An 80D or Sony A6500 or Nikon D7500 would surely have given better results.
In these format comparisons, people often seem to focus (no pun intended) on shallow DOF, to the exclusion of all other considerations. That's not always the paramount concern. In street shooting, for example, I think there's a case to be made for smaller formats and the "advantage" they offer of greater DOF at lower apertures (holding FOV constant). For example, you can shoot an MFT camera at f/8 on a 25mm lens focused at 10 ft and get everything from about 6.5 ft to 23 ft in acceptable focus, according to my DOF app. To approximate that on FF (50mm focused at 10 feet) you'd have to go to about f/16. So, in a case like this, you can shoot at a lower ISO with MFT to get a similar result: essentially equal light gathered (when you adjust the ISO to account for the two stop aperture difference), equal FOV, and equal DOF. Use what works best for your particular situation.
You're right, there are a lot of things to consider when testing sensor size we were focusing our comparison on depth of field and focal length but you make a good point!
The Slanted Lens I use one called “Field Tools,” and I’m glad you asked: It reminded me that I didn’t adjust for the Circle of Confusion in those DOF calculations earlier. Corrected.
I think you used a poor choice for the aps/c camera. A d7500 or d500 (even better) would show more. Or on the Canon side a 80d or even a 77d. Plus you now have the newer Fuji aps/c mirrorless. Maybe an update comparing some of these
Guys, it would have been so much better, clearer, if you had talk about system size indeed of sensor size. The d.o.f difference you see is mostly because the lens you are using have a different lens pupil size (because of difference focal length to conserve f.o.v). Concerning the noise, this is the same thing smaller "system" collect less light for the same picture (smaller pupil), therefore lower SNR per image.
The lenses give you depth of field... Sensor has very little to do with that. You used a telephoto lens on hasselblad of course you get more depth of field with that compared to a wide angle lense. Come on this is not even a real comparison.
I'm sure this is not what you intended, but thanks for giving me yet more ammunition to hold off on replacing my 7D. For my purposes (almost 100% video), it still performs well enough under a variety of conditions that I'll spend my money elsewhere.
The 7D is a great camera but we failed to mention that we were actually using the 7D Mark II! But still feels good to be satisfied with your current gear!
You're right sorry we forgot to mention it in the video but here's the lenses we used! Hasselblad- Hasselblad XCD 90mm f/3.2 Canon 7D Mark II- Tamron 35mm 1.8 GH5- Panasonic 25mm 1.7 A7r3 Canon 50mm 1.2 with a metabones adapter
I think you should have tested a Nikon (and or Fuji) APS-C.. Everyone knows Canon suffers at higher ISO especially on APS-C compared to the others - by at least a stop (or more).
I use the Nikon D500 personally. Learned a long time ago I could invest in faster lens, shoot one stop wider aperture than on full frame and get full frame performance "for what I shoot most". Bodies come and go too fast, the lens last through many bodies.
I'm not sure why didn't even test out the D500 when it's probably the best at lower light and high ISO. Also, there are vintage lenses like Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AI compared to 35mm f/1.8G (latest). The 50mm AI is far far more shallow than the 35mm. My point being that lenses make far more difference than sensor but in the end there are so many factors you can't ever truly have a final judgement. Though I still think the D500 is a far better cropped sensor camera to compare with.
@@TheSlantedLens I don't own the D500 just borrowed it and was impressed, but since the X-T3 came out I've decided to hold off for that instead because it has more to offer me in video options than most cameras.
So the Hasselblad X1D has «the largest digital sensor on the market right now»....?! You guys better start doing research and read some specs,. The X1D is actually the smallest medium format sensor (32.9x43.8mm).
I am sorry but this was rather cringe worth to watch. You put the the 7D into the test, which is a 9 year old camera, noise is going to be really bad with that camera. Having the 1.7 on the Panasonic and 7D you are going to have much less depth of field than a full frame Sony with a canon f/1.2 lens. A full frame DSLR will have certain advantages over a APS-C and Micro 4/3s camera, Generally you will have less noise with a full frame camera (though amount of megapixels does make a difference) and a full frame camera will have more dynamic range, as well as slightly more depth of field but the big advantage of APS-C and Micro 4/3s generally is smaller size of lenses, particularly primes and lower cost of a prime. So a Fujifilm 90mm f/2 costs $799 and weighs 540g, whilst the Canon 135mm f/2 costs $999 and weight 750g. I have both APS-C and full frame cameras and I would say that I use my X-H1 or even older X-E1, far more than I do my Nikon D800, despite me having far more Nikon lenses. The advantage of weight is a significant advantage and whilst I can have a f/1.4 aperture on the Nikkor 105mm, most of the time I am stopping down over f/2 so the advantage of full frame often disappears. Really the big advantage of full frame is low light, APS-C isn't up to the level of full frame sensor in this area. Of course Panasonic and Fujifilm are working on an organic sensor, which should be great in low light, though of course it does drain a lot of power and heat build up issues (my guess you will see it in a Panasonic cine camera first, which can have bigger heat sinks and a larger battery and as the sensor will be global it will be ideal for video. This technology won't be available for a few years yet though.
Sorry we made a mistake and labeled the camera wrong in the video but we are indeed using the Canon 7D Mark II! Yeah I wish we could have tested more cameras but we just opened up the conversation and it's great to hear all of this!
Well that explains the camera (though it is still older than the rest of the cameras and Canon sensor technology does lag behind other manufacturers slightly). Often the ideas behind the video is good but you seem to get wildly different lenses, which ruin any practicality of the test. Personally I would say that APC-C is easily the sweetspot when it comes to sensors. I was at a talk by the MPA on Wednesday and at least 4 of us were using Fujifilm (not including the speaker), who was a wedding photographer. One last reason and one of my main reasons for going over to Fujifilm, was the risk of getting tennis elbow. I got tennis elbow during a shoot earlier this year and when using my D800 and I had to take 6 months off of work and now go to a lighter camera, this has cost me a small fortune and put my business on the brink of bankruptcy. After posting on some photography boards I found that tennis elbow is much more common in the photography industry than I ever thought possible. So the weight/size issue is much more important than just carrying around a camera.
So put the sweet Canon f/1.2 on the SONY, 7DMKII would have done much better with it. Also the Hasselblad does much better due to it being the only one with a negative crop factor.
Sorry you didn't find the comparison helpful, we know that not everyone will have the fastest lens for each camera and we didn't either, so we try to make do with the lenses that we can get a hold of to film :) Let us know which lenses you think would be the best for each camera!
As much as you tried to control these tests, the real world is much more complex. On the low light (F7.0, ISO 1600) photos, why wouldn't a skilled photographer shoot that at F7.0 on m43? You can open up the aperture, use the DOF to your advantage and possibly get 2+ stops back on the ISO. Bottom line is all those cameras are capable of taken great images in skilled hands.
This was just a side by side comparison on the importance of the sensor. These cameras all do produce great images with the right lighting conditions and setup.
The X1-D isn't exactly a proper Medium Format, it's a bit of a cop out. Panasonic GH-5 - 17.5x13mm 7D Mkii - 22.4x15mm Sony - 35.9x24mm X1-D - 43.8x32.9mm H6D - 53x40mm Admittedly the cost ramp is fairly large of course.
The Slanted Lens the H6D Is at least reasonably bigger than the 35mm. I guess I understand why you used the X1 as the comparison, as it’s a more similar sized body and closer in cost.
The Slanted Lens why do like everyone else if it’s standard? I’m really bored with all this bokeh shots with washed out colors. Everyone’s photos looks exactly the same. Sorry, feel no need of sharing my photos. Thanks anyways! :)
You guys did EVERYTHING wrong!! Just kidding!... For those interested, it is worth noting that the smaller sensor did not have more depth of field actually because of the sensor size, but because the crop factor forced you to move farther from the subject to get the same composition. Depth of field is the same if you don't move or change aperture/focal length, but of course, you'd crop a lot of your subject away.
Yes, great comment! What camera do you shoot with Carl and which sensor size do you like?
I've actually only had apsc (and super 35 for video), I suppose because I've mostly done landscape and street photography and I didn't really want to blur out the details... and because budget. I wouldn't object to a full frame one day.
Actually the only one that needed to be farther away was the Hassy where the 35mm equivalent is around 70mm. For the others the equivalents are 7D II = 56mm, GH5 = 50 and (obviously) the A7r3 is already 50mm. So there is no significant distance needed except for the Hassy.
Yes, but that is because the use different focal lengths, And Carl Raetzsch comment was clearly stating what will happen if you keep the same focal length, distance and aperture for every lens, for example a 50mm, and he was right in his statements.
Sorry for the typo in the video. We actually were using the Canon 7D Mark II not the older Canon 7D model! We forgot to mention our lenses, thank you for asking.
Hasselblad- Hasselblad XCD 90mm f/3.2
Canon 7D Mark II- Tamron 35mm 1.8
GH5- Panasonic 25mm 1.7
A7r3 Canon 50mm 1.2 with a metabones adapter
The Slanted Lens I shoot on a T6I so crop sensor life for me. Until I get the 5D
Even WB doesnt match... Its an incorrect comparison.
Haha, no worries! Show us your photos by tagging us on instagram @theslantedlens! You can take great shots on all these cameras.
The tagging done. Sure, all of them are good, but its hard to compare without an initial matching according to exposure and WB, plus UHD resolution on UA-cam (for a higher bitrate).
I would prefer the comparison where the closest profile were selected + made some basic correction in Lightroom according to WB and contrast to match the histogram. Also the similar class lenses should be used. Then to make the 2nd comparison with the same images after hard stretching in Lightroom (extremely rise shadows, and lower highlights, boost saturation)... So it will really show difference between sensors and the size. You can also borrow some techniques from the video "Blackmagic Pocket Camera 4K vs Arri Alexa" by wolfcrow.
Nice subject, nice video, but please lower the music volume.
What lenses were used? Was the distance to subject the same? Were there any crops done post to make the framing the same? The background compression all looked similar enough that I am going to assume they were all equivalent focal lengths, but I believe that would have changed the distance to subject which would have impacted the amount of falloff.
Sorry we forgot to post the lenses, here they are: Hasselblad XCD 90 mm 5 3.2, on the Canon 7D mark II we used the Tamron 35mm 1.8, on the GH5 we used the Panasonic 25mm 1.7, and on the A7r3 we used the Canon 50mm 1.2 lens with a metabones adapter. The distance from subject to camera was not the same, but the size of the person in the frame was. It wasn't about cropping afterwards, when we were there on a standard equivalent of a 50mm lens we made her head and body size as similar as we could in order to judge depth of field. Hope that helps!
So with the GH5 you used the cheapest MFT lens available, were the other lenses the cheapest for their respective sistems? why don't use the Olympus 25mm f1.2 instead? the results would have been a lot better.
A few things you might want to consider in your next comparisons:
Adjust the apertures according to the sensor size and get the best MFT currently available, which is in my opinion the Oly OMD EM1 MKii.
I went through quite a LOT of different brands/sensor sizes and finally ended up with the EM1 Mkii for Landscape/Macro/Portrait. If some customers order LARGE prints, I simply shoot in HighRes Mode which gives my friggin 80 Megapixels RAW.
It is pretty easy to spot wannabe pros when they complain about DOF on mft.
Thanks for sharing with us!
In my own testing, I found the Fujifilm APS-C sensors performed significantly better than the latest Canon APS-C sensors. The Fujifilm is actually much closer to Canon full-frame in terms of ISO performance. The Fujifilm noise was also more pleasing and almost film-like. I currently use an A7 III though (replaced my Canon M50).
This comparison is meaningless because you guys made idiotic gear choices.
Agreed. I stopped right after they introduced the cameras they were using.
Sorry that you didn't find the comparison helpful. What cameras would you have liked to see instead? We are always open and interested to test cameras that you want to see!
As per my above comment, but maybe compare gear from the same company. Then you could use the same lens across the whole range
If someone knows what they doing, they can make any of those cameras perform well. No one shoots for equivalence, they shoot whats in front of them with whatever they have in hand. They then need to make to best possible creative decisions to create the best possible photos. If the photos turn out great, nothing else matters.
Your channel does such great videos. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE consider uploading in 4K. I know you don't think it makes a difference with UA-cam compression but it really does show more detail.
We will definitely try in the future! thanks for your suggestions :)
f/1.7 isn't extremely fast on Micro 4/3 - f/1.2 and f/0.95 lenses are generally available and are not overly expensive.
Similarly, there are faster lenses than f/1.7 for APS-C as well.
Also, did you mention which lenses specifically you were using and I missed it? On the Hasselblad, I'd guess it's the 90mm f/3.2 and for the Sony, I'm guessing maybe the Mitakon 85mm f/1.2... but since focal length plays a factor in depth of field, that would be a useful thing to know. I've definitely seen smoother/shallower depth of field with APS-C and Micro 4/3 cameras than what those sample pictures showed.
Also, the ISO comparison is potentially somewhat skewed by the fact that you normalized all lenses to the same small aperture. Sure, if I'm shooting at f/7 with a micro 4/3 camera at dusk, it's going to be grainier than shooting at f/7 with a medium format sensor at dusk... but if I can only open the medium format up to f/3.2 and I can open the Micro 4/3 camera up to f/0.95, the difference will be substantially less. It's no surprise that ISO 1600 is noisy on the smaller sensors - but as you pointed out, the depth of field will also be substantially different. If you open up the aperture 4 stops on the micro 4/3 (f/8 on the bigger sensor would be f/2 if I'm not mistaken) to match the depth of field of the bigger camera, you could be shooting a very clean ISO 100.
Sorry we forgot to mention the lenses in the video, here's the list of lenses we used:
Hasselblad- Hasselblad XCD 90mm f/3.2
Canon 7D Mark II- Tamron 35mm 1.8
GH5- Panasonic 25mm 1.7
A7r3 Canon 50mm 1.2 with a metabones adapter
Thanks for your comments. It's great to have this dialogue going on, there's always more to learn and to test out.
Got it! Thanks for the response!
So the Hasselblad was using something with a FOV close to that of a 70mm lens on FF and the others were all using closer to a 50mm on FF. That's also potentially relevant! :)
Also, ouch on the lens for the GH5 - it only gets a $150 low-end consumer lens and it's not much better for the 7D which gets a mid-range consumer lens where the Sony gets a $1500 Canon prime and the Hasselblad gets a $3,200 one. It'd be interesting to see this comparison with faster/nicer lenses for the Panasonic and Canon and everything using a focal equivalent closer to 70mm (or with the Hasselblad with a focal equivalent closer to 50mm).
Yeah that's a good thing to point out
@@EatsTooMuchJam You are really pointing out the price tag of a m43 and a medium format lens? To show what? This lenses cannot be compared by its price!
There where also shots with f7 when the lenses are all good in sharpness (also low end lenses) and the difference was quite obvious!
I understand the differences of comparing different focal lenses, but 20mm for MF does really matters here (sharpness, low light noise)? Depth of field is of course influenced by the focal length, but then you could compare the cameras without MF!
Another fact: Canons old 50mm f1.2 lens (made since 90') is an old construction with a low resolution. I bet that the panasonic lens is sharper than this Canon lens
@GEKO I didn't say anything about the sharpness of any of the lenses, did I? I was talking about the speed of the lenses and the FOV equivalents - if it's fair to pay $1500 for a 50mm f/1.2 lens (one of the fastest full-frame lenses) to use on the Sony, it's fair to pay $500 for something like the SLR Magic 25mm f/0.95 to use on the Micro 4/3 - that's about the same field of view and one of the fastest lenses available for that format. It's a little bit insipid to put a slower lens on a smaller sensor and then say "the smaller sensor can't get shallow depth of field like the bigger sensor can."
Were there any other words that you wanted to put into my mouth to pick pointless arguments or are we done here?
Once again, the right hammer for the right job prevails! My primary camera is the Pentax 645z, and I love it, but I would never use it for day to day shooting, I have a micro 4/3 for that.
yeah, it definitely depends on what kind of shots you want. thanks for sharing!
So many nitpickers, Thank you for making the video. (Even if it wasn't high science)
The Hasselblad XQD is 44x33mm, there are 54x40.5mm sensors available for Hasselblad H, Phase One and digital backs for things like the Contax 645 and Hasselblad V. So, not the largest sensor on the market.
Thanks for pointing that out!
I agree that fullframe is the sweet spot but your work isn't fair for MFT.
If you want a deep DOF indoor per example you can shoot a 17mm 1.2 (34mm equiv.) at 2.8 with the more efficient IBIS benefit.
MFT is today in ISO performance like a APS-C and in deep DOF is fantastic.
For another view, if you use a Oly 45 1.2 you can achieve a beautiful shallow DOF and a perfect focus.
Try this kits:
MFT
17mm 1.2
25mm 1.2
45mm 1.2
Fullframe
35mm 1.4
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.4
Now you compare all things, DoF, shallow and deep, ISO, rate AF, size, price, etc.
Thanks so much for writing up those suggestions! We always love when you share with us.
Take the focal length & aperture value and multiply by it's crop factor, you'll get the depth of field conversion in full frame terms (using similar framing):
Medium Format (X1D): 63mm @ f7.1 * 0.79 ~ 50mm @ f/5.6
Full frame: 50mm @ f/5.6 * 1 ~ 50mm @ f/5.6
APS-C: 33mm @ f/3.5 * 1.5 ~ 50mm @ f/5.3
MFT: 25mm @ f/2.8 * 2 ~ 50mm @ f/5.6
If you want to shoot portraits on a micro 4/3 lens you wouldn't be using a 25mm. This is a bit of misleading test.
Thanks for letting us know. What lens would you recommend instead?
Any of the many lenses with focal lengths between 42.5 mm and 75 mm would have been more natural choices.
In particular the Pana-Leica 42.5 mm f1.2, the Olympus Pro 45 mm f1.2, the Voigtlander 42.5 mm f0.95 or the Olympus 75 mm f1.8.
If the idea was to use more of a budget lens, then the Sigma 60 mm f2.8 is widely praised and both the Panasonic 42.5 mm f1.7 and the Olympus 45 mm f1.8 are also considered to be very good portrait lenses.
That's a lot of great options to consider. Thanks for the insight we appreciate hearing your opinion!
Peter made some good suggestions, and I'd add the Sigma 56mm F/1.4 which should be out any minute now (actually, any of the three Sigma Contemporary 16/30/56mm F/1.4 lenses would suit portraiture for different levels of context and framing - that could be a video in itself... ;)
Wow, so much false information in just one sentence. Coming from a D750 now on a OMD EM1 Mkii I can tell you have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm confused on why when you're supposed to be comparing sesnor size, everything else on each rig was different too? Focal length, aperture, camera brand, lens brand, lens quality/cost. Surely to get a pure experiment (or as pure as conceivably possible) you'd want to keep as many of the other factors the same as possible? Awesome, you just compared a bunch of different lenses, camera bodies and sensors. What do we learn from that? Ummm... nothing? Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no pro, just confused by your 'Sensor Size Comparison' experiment.
they setup this gear to match equivalent focal lengths, they didn't mention it at all for some reason. They are all giving a roughly 50mm field of view for each respective sensor size, which is a better test of the differences in sensor size rather than just going for the longest and fastest lens...
Thanks for the videos, been following you for years and you been a referent for my own youtube channel, i think you neglected a few things that matter a lot and simplified a bit too much this video ( i guess to reach an audience that doesnt knows much about medium format ) Basically using non equivalent lenses can change a lot the results in terms of DOF, You got right the equivalence on Depths, there are 4 stops between a 4/3 and the X1D ( i use both ) and 2 Stops between 4/3 and 35mm and APS-C falls in between. So basically 2 stops between X1d and 35mm is acurate. The point you missing is Tridimensionality, the benefit of medium format is not about how much area you get in focus but what happens after the focused area is finished. The transition from focus to unfocus, that's where the magic happens. 4/3 have next to 0 on that matter, if you take a very close up of something you will see that it takes long distance to get whats behind out of focus, this improves towards the 35mm but it makes a huge jump on the medium format ( specially giant jump if you work with full medium format sensors ). One thing that makes 4/3 really great is that you need less light to achieve same DOF, so let's say i want the DOF i get with the sony at 5,6 i will have to put my 4/3 ( olympus in my case ) at just 2'8. Now if you add flashes in the mix, and i needed 2000w power to achieve this photo with the sony, i can do the same with 500w on the olympus. Basically means i can work at lower power settings, and that can mean a lot more pops per battery or a much faster refresh time on my flashes, or saving a lot of money on flash Ws. i agree that 35mm is the most "versatile" in terms of DOF, but i think the difference with 4/3 is much less than people thinks. Thanks for the videos :)
Grande Kube!
Thank you for this comparison which makes sense for someone who already has an idea of the different systems.
Though, it was pretty unfair towards the (already relatively limited) GH5.
You used a 150€ lens and compared it with lenses almost 10 times more expensive.
For a portrait with shallow depth of field you would use a longer, and if affordable, faster lens (a 42.5 f0.95 would still be cheaper than the canon lens you used).
And the landscape shot would never require f7 in low light (as you showed, 2 stops brighter would still grant a larger depth of field than ff and mf). At ISO400 everything would have looked better.
If you'd find the time, it would be GREAT if you'd try another test and challenge yourself to get the best out of every system.
Of course medium format and fullframe would win the portrait-contest, but it would be very interesting how close you could get with apc and mft.
Thanks for many very helpful videos!
Guys, this is pointless. Just pick up whatever camera you have, create beautiful art and be happy. Life is too short for arguing about meaninglessness.
We definitely don't want to start arguments, but we do encourage that everyone use the camera they have to their fullest potential! Thanks for being a voice of encouragement :)
I think gathering information about equipment is valuable. Ignorance is not bliss
I use the GH5. I have tested the Sony a7rii and the Canon 7D mark ii. All three ranging in my budget. I picked the GH5 because of the color science, lenses, and great image quality. Achieving shallow depth of field is very easy and all it requires is a good lens choice. There are some lenses that have an aperture of 0.95 but I roll with a Sigma 30mm 1.4. I get outstanding footage and photos with it. So I disagree with you that sensor size matters. It really doesn't matter as long as the user knows what they are doing. Great test though but the GH5 and Sony are far more versatile. Canon sucks and Hassel blad is out of my price range. Hope this helps with someone picking up a Micro Four Thirds camera. You can't go wrong with this choice. Plus you can see the videos and photos I take with my GH5. Not hating on full frame just everyone has a
preferance.
You're very right about everyone having a preference, that's exactly why we love hearing about your cameras and experiences. The GH5 is a great camera for sure!
@@TheSlantedLens I love how brutally honest you are. Don't mean to be a troll or anything but I'm glad you like to hear honesty! 😊
I'm glad! We really do love to hear honesty! We love when the community has input and things to say, there's always more to learn for sure!
"Colour science"??? Or you could just calibrate your monitor so any camera's images will look the same!
@@stevemckenzie4731 Well I wasn't talking about that. Of course you can calibrate your monitor or input luts to make a look. I wasn't talking about the monitor. I was talking about the color science that comes off the sensor. Basically the "Look" or "Logs." If you take a closer look at the video comparisons The Slanted Lens beautifully executed. You can see that all the colors are different. Raw images that very in color. For example everyone likes the Canon colors/look or the Sony colors/look. This is what I mean by Color Science. Used by engineers who make the cameras color profiles. But like I said everyone has a preference. I like Lumix color science and I wish it was more of an Arri Alexa color. But all I'm taking about is what comes off the sensor before you start editing to make your look. Not hating but calibrating your monitor is true as well.
what an insightful video! people put so much value on gear today!
thanks for sharing this great content with us
and i really really enjoyed watching this!
Im.confused by your comment at the end where you say: sensor size might not matter the way you thought. But throughout the video you are saying how cameras fell apart in some shots. Would love to understand what you meant by that? Thanks
With the ISO testing, we were surprised at how the Canon 7D Mark II as well as the GH5 was super grainy. Also with the GH5 we noticed that it struggled to give a shallow depth of field. Just some different variations for the cameras that weren't based on the sensor size, and more of just the overall performance of the camera and the lens we used. Hope that answered your question!
Great video. Very informative :)
thanks! which camera would you have gone with?
Sony. I have a soft spot for them.
With so many good APS-C cameras out there, you chose to use a veritable dinosaur in the outdated 7D Mkii. Invalidates that aspect of the test.
Are they all using the same metering mode ?
Would have been nice if you could have used similarly priced lenses. I don’t think it was fair to use a $148 lens on the GH5.
Yeah, we had trouble getting together the right lenses, but thanks for letting us know your thoughts!
Dof is got nothing to do with camera or sensor size, it is all about lens. Lens design that got to do with field of view, aperture, element formula but mostly it is about the actual size between the element from front to back and the entrance pupil. Same lens fov and aperture for the same purpose let say 35mm camera, might have dof differences and different dof curve between focus distance.
Of course the most important is the distance between the object on focus and the lens itself.
The bigger the size of lens element diameter in general, the bigger the image created, it got to do with the purpose for what format of lens it is for. Meanwhile a sensor just capturing the image projected by a lens, the differences is how big the sensor capture the image, almost whole, just half or quarter . Using the same lens, for the same framing, bigger sensor will need to get closer while smaller sensor need to go further, so the dof will be different, but again it is because the distance of object is different.
Noise happened when not enough data send by pixel sensor cell. Each sell define what kind of colour represented by a pixel. A sensor cell catch a light that transform into electric current as data on rgb mixture. Kind like solar power charging the cell. The more the light capture, the more current it send, the more accurate data of colour until it is too much and become too bright start to clipping. Or no data at all as black. This not enough data on some cell or not enough current from the cell make the data corrupt, so when it boosted in the engine with cranking the iso up, you start having noise. Apart from the light capture, the current send is up to 2 things, the size of the cell and technology of the cell itself. So if you know the basic how a camera and lens works, it is not hard to know when you can push the iso and knowing your noise limit in certain setting and condition, regardless what camera you use.
Any chance you could in the future add the Fuji XFT2? No, it is not a FF but very sharp up how does it compare to the others when using the native lens.
Possibly! we will keep that on our list.
is that what you currently shoot with?
yes, it is...from a Canon 5D3/4 and L-lenses. I do miss the FF but as far as DOF I do not see a lot of differences shooting w Fuji F2.8 and F4 glass. Just do not miss the weight. I truly prefer the Mirrorless camera....battery life w Fuji sucks. I would send some images but no link to do so. All my recent images on my instagram.com/tcgibson7/ are taken with the Fuji XT2 and 70-200 and 24-70 equivalents.
Great photos! I love those Aspens this time of year. Thanks for the insight we appreciate hearing your opinion and seeing your work.
Thanks for the comparison. It's a lot of work so it is much appreciated.
1 I wish you would have taken the time to adjust the exposure in the first set of tests - Panasonic was overexposed making the comparison more difficult
2 It was really good to have the building on first set to make depth of field easier to compare
3 I did not find anything surprising (except the landscape noise comparison of GH5 and two other cameras)
Too many people forget to mention, when desiring to blur the background for a portrait, that for smaller sensor sizes, you can easily get more blur by going to telephoto, especially simple with a good zoom lens such as with the 70mm-200mm equiv /F2.8 for the GH5 for example
4 While I use the GH5 for video, I much prefer the full sensor size of my Canon 5D II for stills - so I'm in agreement with your opinions about full sensor size cameras usefulness
5 Finally, as I already said, your tests confirmed much of what I already understood about the effect of sensor size on various aspects of the image.
Once again THANKS VERY MUCH
You make some very great points, Dan. We'll be sure to make an effort to normalize the exposure and framing for all test shots of each camera in future tests!
Thank you, guys. This is interesting for those of us who are deciding what equipment to buy.
To compare apples with apples you HAVE to take into consideration the sensor size and the crop factor and multiply it to the aperture....otherwise you have a "fruit salad" rather than a fair comparison.
That comparison is misleading, sorry. Today everybody knows how to compare different sensor sizes and that sensor size dont matter for DOF!
This is the type of videos that misrepresent micro four thirds as a whole, not much explanation here
In my humble opinion, a very misleading comparison with a very poor technical analysis and setup. Too over-simplified. You did not even consider that different photographers (amateur or pro) have different needs, styles or approaches when selecting a camera and sensor size. I'm afraid some people could make a bad use of their limited cash to buy the wrong camera based on this comparison.
Thanks for sharing marco, we'd love to do one that is more well-rounded in the future.
@@TheSlantedLens he's right that was a shitty video. Besides if you can't shoot prifessionaly with a gh5 you really need to do something else. One of the best camera out there for content creators
My digital cameras are the 7DII and 5DIII, which as a purely stills photographer who needs the build suit me nicely. You kept referring to the "7D" but I couldn’t work out whether you were talking about the original or the mark II. (I’ve just seen your comment re what model now, thank you)
I mainly use mine for wildlife but when the light is low the full frame 5DIII does have the advantage. I do subscribe to the theory, that for wildlife, within reason a noisy sharp image is better than a noise free unsharp image, but 2000 ISO on the 7DII is my max especially with a longer lens.
I think light gathering ability is also very important for landscape and wildlife, where the crop sensor needs an ISO of 2000 the full frame might only need 1000. Thus it’s a double win, lower ISO from a camera that handles higher ISO better. So it’s not only ISO performance but at which point you need to raise it.
With medium format, I think we are definitely still at a point where film has some distinct advantages as well as the usual disadvantages. Amongst the advantages are cost and size of sensor (negative). In common use there are cameras that give much bigger negs, 67 is very much a norm. As for cost, how much is the X1D landscape kit again?
I always like how you set out your tests and experiments, you never claim they are scientifically accurate, but you conduct them as photographers and videographers. As always a brilliant video, thanks for the effort and expense you went to.
Thanks Mark! Sorry for the confusion about the 7DII, it is the newest 7D not the first one. That's an interesting point that you bring up in regards to having a noisy sharp image as opposed to a noise-free unsharp. We definitely noticed how the full-frame did have an advantage on the crop sensor with the low light tests we did. Great information, thanks for sharing with us.
Good idea to test. I too had thought that aps-c sensor size was possibly a sweet spot. A lot depends on what one values - ultra hi definition, croppability, shallow dof and subject separation, size, weight and cost, not to mention portability and convenience of operation, let alone availability of glass? Take your pick and then see if it meets expectations! So you were always set to fail in some eyes and thus open to brickbats.
Anyway my take is that a hi-res, biggish sensor is probably always going to prove difficult to beat. If one can afford the kit and carry the heft then we can each go as far as we see fit.
You didn't upset me, as a recent convert to a Sony A7Riii with fast prime glass (I just love the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f1. 8 - compact and very sharp with reasonable subject separation). It feels to me as if I made a pretty sweet choice. Yet I'm aware we all seek reassurance post investment (post cognitive dissonance), suffer from confirmation bias and so are more likely to respond favourably to supporting affirmation. Or visa versa. Bait for the various 'tribal fanboys' perhaps?
Sorry I didn't leave a bitter, twisted angry comment, as requested - I leave that to others better versed in harsh criticism and profanity.
Thanks for sharing with us! We know that people tend to have strong opinions about their cameras and their lenses! We love to hear everyone's insight. We use the a7r3 a lot for our BTS footage, so we agree it's just a great camera.
Thank you for that comparison, for me was interesting. But...
To bad that you chose 7D as a model of aps-c. Much better choose would be nikon D500 or fuji xt2. Maybe another time :)
Thank you
Good to know, thanks.
Of course! Glad to help. What videos would you like to see next?
Love that you kept the perspectives the same on all of the shots as you would of had to stand different distances to do so.
Yeah we did our best to keep the body and head the same in all of the frames to make the comparison easy to see!
For starters, the X1D is not the largest digital sensor you can get out there, the sensors Phase One uses are bigger than what you find in both the X1D and Fuji GFX line. Second, it seems you used the 90mm on the hasselblad which is 71mm in full frame equivalence but on everything else you used a 50mm equivalent lens, thats going to effect the results for the hasselblad in terms of DOF so you should have gone with their 65mm f2.8 as it is a 50mm equivalent lens.
We realized our lens choice mistake too late! It was a hectic shoot, to say the least.
The details and colors of Hasselblad are gorgeous and outstanding. No wonder why it's so expensive.
Rather than just showing depth of field, I would have loved to seen an emphasis on comparing equivalent field of views and the differences in lens compression. They are all about a 50mm FOV but how they compress the background and facial features are different. Still I love seeing this type on content!
Yeah that's a different angle that we didn't get to focus much on, but we will keep it noted for future comparisons! Thanks for watching
Shallow depth of field is a silly thing.
It's definitely an effect used for a lot of still portrait photography. Do you prefer to shoot with a wider depth of field?
I'm embarrassed for you guys. Hope you got a free trip to Cali.
The Hassell has better skin tone than the Sony
1. Lens collection; biggest bang for your (substantial) bucks in getting versatility
2. Sensor Size
3. Camera Body
Maybe switch 2 and 3. But #1 is easily the most important.
There are just SO MANY good camera bodies out there today. You could walk into a camera store blindfolded and randomly bump into one.
thanks for letting us know your thoughts. that's a really helpful tool when looking to upgrade your cameras!
I would be curious to see a dollar for dollar comparison, i.e. an older medium format sensor vs. a similarly priced but newer full frame, etc. I shoot a Mamiya 645 film camera and I'm tempted by the older Mamiya/PhaseOne digitals, but I'm concerned the image quality may be no better if not worse than my Canon 5D MkIII.
geez. Anything about lens compression maybe?
Not this time, but maybe next time! Thanks for letting us know
IMHO you should compare equivalent aperture - if sony f/7.0 - panasonic should be set on f/3.2
We did an equivalency test 4:45 Is that what you are referring to?
yes, probably, but I was thinking more about 8:20 where closing aperture so much was unnecessary for a small sensor. anyway, you made a great comparison, I hope viewers understand this equivalence stuff.
Yes, I think it's kinda weird comparison. For noise test you should use aperature that gives same depth of field for each camera. For landscape you don't need to go down to f/7.0 with M43 sensor. Of course it have more noise that way. And also, why use old 7D to compare noise on different sensor, is already 9 years old technology.
That's a good point about the noise testing. We made a typo in the video, we did shoot with the Canon 7D mark II not the older model!
X-t2 or x-t3 , that´s what you should test as an aps-c. This test is ........... not good!
Definitely noted, is that the camera you use?
also, that X1-D is not a full size medium format.
what do you mean full size? The X1D is medium format
The Slanted Lens yes indeed! Just saying that you would just have a negligeable difference like Zach Arias would say between a ‘modern’ apsc and a full frame.
there are two sensors in medium format, X1d has the cropped one, 44x33 ( much bigger than a 35mm sensor ) but the H6 100 has the real medium format sensor which mesures 53.4x40mm basically you have aproximately the same difference between 35mm and x1d than between x1d and h6 100
In general , the larger the sensor area , like film , the better .
in the overall sense yes, it makes it easier to capture more light.
Thank you.
you're welcome! what camera do you shoot on currently?
guys. sensor size does not have a direct influence on DOF. it's just science. actual;ly MFT sensor produces slightly shallower! DOF than FF. there are many articles about this it has to do with the circle of confusion which contains more pixels in the case of MFT. I can send you a link to a good explanation if you wish. but at any rate 25mm f/1.4 on MFT produces the same DOF as 25mm f/1.4 on FF !!! or actually a bit shallower :-) when you compare FOV 25 MFT == 50 FF you need to doublew the aperture for the correct DOF so 25mm f/1.4 MFT --> 50mm f/2.8 FF (DOF wise).
thanks for sharing the science with us! we definitely aren't math or science people haha.
@@TheSlantedLens You are laughing at yourself that you don't know the science behind about what you are talking about and at the same time have no problem missleading people with your conclusions... embarrassing. :(
Yes, where's that LINK?
"Sonys don't perform well when you push the ISO" - Huh??
Just something we noticed when we were shooting at sunset, let us know if you have a different opinion!
The A7III does significantly better than the A7RIII. But the Sony bodies do outperform their Canon counterparts - excluding the 1DX MkII. Consistently more details on the A7RIII but it can be perceived as noisier. You can trade that resolution for noise reduction making it quite a bit better than its 24MP competition.
Yea Ive noticed they don't perform great at high iso
@@airtyme I guess that I don't have much to compare my a7iii to.... what cameras perform well at "high ISO"?
The full frame most expensive camera is the best?
IMAGINE MY SHOCK
the medium format hasselblad is actually the most expensive! but you make a good point that you pay for the quality.
Yeah, I get the impression that with Hasselblad you are paying for lenses that have been moulded on the thighs of Amazon women or something. They are a rich person's play thing beyond the practicality of us mere mortals.
haha, wow that was an amazing analogy. it is a very pretty penny for those lenses, that's why we only rent them! just mere mortals here
I think this comparison would have been better if you chose to use cameras with as similar a pixel pitch as possible. The 42MP A7RIII full frame sensor has a much smaller pixel pitch than the 50MP Hasselblad because the medium format sensor is so much larger (4.51 microns vs. 5.3 microns). Additionally, the 20MP 7DII has less than half the megapixels of the A7RIII but the sensor size is not half that of the full-frame (4.1 micron pixel pitch). Finally, the GH5 with micro 4/3 sensor and 20MP has a pixel pitch of 3.34 microns, the smallest of the bunch. I think a better comparison would have been the X1D (5.3), the Canon 5DIV (5.36), Nikon D500 (4.2), and Olympus OM-D E-M10III (3.74). I think these are a much better close approximation of pixel density and comparison of the impact of sensor size on image characteristics.
Thanks for sharing with us your thoughts! We are always looking to see what other camera comparisons we can do. We didn't consider the pixel pitch of each camera in this round, but will keep it noted for our next go!
That's why i have a 6D I
6D is a wonderful camera, big sensor, no extra fluff!
Nice video! But the audio at the beach... 😂😜
For a future sensor size discussion, auto focus should also be a factor. With mirrorless, the difference between focusing at f1.4 FF and aps-c is huge in low light!
Also, an idea for a video that I would like to make, but don't have the resources for, is a best combo comparison. The A6500/Sigma 30mm f1.4 is a good start. I would love to find similar performance in the FF world, still haven't!
Yeah beaches are not a great place for doing speaking bits haha. Thanks for bringing that up, we didn't even think to cover autofocus.. Do you use the A6500 for your shoots?
The Slanted Lens Yes, I use the A6500 with the Sigma 30mm as my B-cam/handheld. It basically becomes a zoom lens with clear image zoom, which is useful in bringing life into the scene since the talent is always sitting down 😁
A few months ago I changed from a D500 APS- C system and Olympus EM1 mark II M43 system to a single system based on a Sony A7III and A7II full frame, as I required better low light capability. I was always happy with the depth of field produced by my APS-C and M43 cameras (I have owned a few of each), because I am not a fan of really shallow depth of field. Lenses greater than f2.8 hold no interest for me. I phototgraph wildlife almost exclusively and a greater depth of field is often an advantage.
Ah, that's a great thing to point out. Depending on the line of photography work you do, you'll definitely favor different things in the camera and the lens. Thanks for sharing with us!
Print a 27x17 photo, add a frame and matting and you will need a lot of wall space in a house. Even 12x18’s framed are fairly large.
True that. Thanks for watching!
That was a slanted comparison, wasn't it?
I see lots of hazing, tho. The GH5 is just impressive!
The idea is great, the shots illustrate the principle nicely. However. Sensor size matters, with equal megapixels, as it gives larger individual pixels that can measure light more easily. But that measurement is also determined by the camera motherboard, electronics, processor, firmware. The video illustrates this when the APS-C does worse than micro-4/3rds.
Sensor size does not dictate depth of field (DoF). Focal length dictates DoF, with aperture. Transitively, sensor size implies DoF because a larger size sensor needs a longer focal length to get the same image angle as the lens on the smaller sensor. Your physics teacher would give you a fail for talking sensor size DoF though.
Comparing the Hassy 90mm with the Canon 50 is a tiny bit unfair. The Hassy has a 0.8 crop factor so its 90mm compares to a theoretical Canon 62.5 (which has less DoF than the 50)
35mm on Canon APS-C is 56mm EQ
also 90mm on Hasselbald is 71mm EQ
=> which are different than the others.
In real world usage you to have step back for the same picture
=> which will lead to less "background blur" in real-world scenario, than you presented in the comparison.
For better comparisom you should use 30mm lens with Canon APS-C and 65mm on Hasselblad.
i wish you checked the lens and filters for smudges :(
I've been Sony the past decade because of the technology and the flexibility it gives me as they point out. Once they hit actual medium format digital (Actual 6x6 sensor size), maybe that would be better than the Hasselblad or fuji G-format. But I do love to have a gh5 for compact run and gun video 😊 To each his own and happy that there are a lot of choices in tee market!
there are definitely so many cameras on the market, it's so hard to choose sometimes! great that you found ones that work for you, that's really our goal is to help people to choose the camera that works best for them :)
You are using an old 7D to represent apsc cameras? That is very unfair. The sensor on that is built for speed, not ultimate quality, it is a wildlife and sports camera. The 80D is far better and most would argue that any Canon sensor is less good than its Sony apsc equivalent. A very bizarre choice.
There was a typo in the video, we were using the Canon 7D mark II with a Tamron 35mm 1.8 lens! Do you use Sony?
@@TheSlantedLens No I am a Canon user, I saw on the video it was the 7D mark ii, but my earlier comment still applies, it is an ageing camera with a sub-par sensor, even by Canon standards. An 80D or Sony A6500 or Nikon D7500 would surely have given better results.
try a PhaseOne XF with the larger 53.7×40.4mm medium format sensor next time for a real difference next to the A7Riii
In these format comparisons, people often seem to focus (no pun intended) on shallow DOF, to the exclusion of all other considerations. That's not always the paramount concern. In street shooting, for example, I think there's a case to be made for smaller formats and the "advantage" they offer of greater DOF at lower apertures (holding FOV constant). For example, you can shoot an MFT camera at f/8 on a 25mm lens focused at 10 ft and get everything from about 6.5 ft to 23 ft in acceptable focus, according to my DOF app. To approximate that on FF (50mm focused at 10 feet) you'd have to go to about f/16. So, in a case like this, you can shoot at a lower ISO with MFT to get a similar result: essentially equal light gathered (when you adjust the ISO to account for the two stop aperture difference), equal FOV, and equal DOF. Use what works best for your particular situation.
You're right, there are a lot of things to consider when testing sensor size we were focusing our comparison on depth of field and focal length but you make a good point!
Thanks! P.S. I didn't mean to imply you were one of those fetishizing shallow DOF in your format comparison.
no worries. you mentioned a DOF app, which one do you use?
The Slanted Lens I use one called “Field Tools,” and I’m glad you asked: It reminded me that I didn’t adjust for the Circle of Confusion in those DOF calculations earlier. Corrected.
Gorgeous model
I think you used a poor choice for the aps/c camera. A d7500 or d500 (even better) would show more. Or on the Canon side a 80d or even a 77d. Plus you now have the newer Fuji aps/c mirrorless. Maybe an update comparing some of these
we aim to shoot for some of the newer cameras in the future!
Guys, it would have been so much better, clearer, if you had talk about system size indeed of sensor size. The d.o.f difference you see is mostly because the lens you are using have a different lens pupil size (because of difference focal length to conserve f.o.v).
Concerning the noise, this is the same thing smaller "system" collect less light for the same picture (smaller pupil), therefore lower SNR per image.
thanks for letting us know your thoughts!
Let us know which camera you have below and which sensor size you prefer! We want to hear your thoughts!
If you use focal reducers adapters on m4/3rds or APS-C...changes the game.
The lenses give you depth of field... Sensor has very little to do with that. You used a telephoto lens on hasselblad of course you get more depth of field with that compared to a wide angle lense. Come on this is not even a real comparison.
Lenses are important in these comparisons and you didn’t mention these.
The lenses are listed in the writeup of the video: ua-cam.com/video/WhEtMQXutBg/v-deo.html
I'm sure this is not what you intended, but thanks for giving me yet more ammunition to hold off on replacing my 7D. For my purposes (almost 100% video), it still performs well enough under a variety of conditions that I'll spend my money elsewhere.
The 7D is a great camera but we failed to mention that we were actually using the 7D Mark II! But still feels good to be satisfied with your current gear!
If you are nearly 100%, why use a stills camera and not a dedicated video camera?
fuji get a faster lense for Medium format... therefor... Medium format is best
Thanks for Mr. Morgan .
Your teaching very grateful for our poor people bcoous I can not pay workshop classes. Still I am using Canon 5D classic.
That's still an awesome camera! We are still glad that you are watching and learning!
APS-C are the best, because... I have one? :(
Haha, you are truly loyal to your camera. I have one as well, they are still great cameras to shoot with, definitely more limitations though
Useless experiment without knowing what lenses were used
You're right sorry we forgot to mention it in the video but here's the lenses we used!
Hasselblad- Hasselblad XCD 90mm f/3.2
Canon 7D Mark II- Tamron 35mm 1.8
GH5- Panasonic 25mm 1.7
A7r3 Canon 50mm 1.2 with a metabones adapter
I think you should have tested a Nikon (and or Fuji) APS-C.. Everyone knows Canon suffers at higher ISO especially on APS-C compared to the others - by at least a stop (or more).
Yeah we wish we could have compared more cameras! Do you use a Nikon?
I use the Nikon D500 personally. Learned a long time ago I could invest in faster lens, shoot one stop wider aperture than on full frame and get full frame performance "for what I shoot most". Bodies come and go too fast, the lens last through many bodies.
Yeah that's true! The equipment is always changing and I'm glad you found the method that works for you!
Thanks. The sad part is most preach sensor size instead of using the right lens and settings for what you are shooting for the best results..
I'm not sure why didn't even test out the D500 when it's probably the best at lower light and high ISO. Also, there are vintage lenses like Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AI compared to 35mm f/1.8G (latest). The 50mm AI is far far more shallow than the 35mm. My point being that lenses make far more difference than sensor but in the end there are so many factors you can't ever truly have a final judgement. Though I still think the D500 is a far better cropped sensor camera to compare with.
I wish we could have tested more cameras, this is not at all a comprehensive comparison! Do you shoot with the D500?
@@TheSlantedLens I don't own the D500 just borrowed it and was impressed, but since the X-T3 came out I've decided to hold off for that instead because it has more to offer me in video options than most cameras.
Yeah we've been hearing a lot of good things about the X-T3. I bet you'll love shooting with that camera!
5:35 TERROR 😂
So the Hasselblad X1D has «the largest digital sensor on the market right now»....?! You guys better start doing research and read some specs,. The X1D is actually the smallest medium format sensor (32.9x43.8mm).
Hassleblad's color are awesome
Yeah, the color is fantastic. Thanks for your comment.
I am sorry but this was rather cringe worth to watch. You put the the 7D into the test, which is a 9 year old camera, noise is going to be really bad with that camera. Having the 1.7 on the Panasonic and 7D you are going to have much less depth of field than a full frame Sony with a canon f/1.2 lens.
A full frame DSLR will have certain advantages over a APS-C and Micro 4/3s camera, Generally you will have less noise with a full frame camera (though amount of megapixels does make a difference) and a full frame camera will have more dynamic range, as well as slightly more depth of field but the big advantage of APS-C and Micro 4/3s generally is smaller size of lenses, particularly primes and lower cost of a prime. So a Fujifilm 90mm f/2 costs $799 and weighs 540g, whilst the Canon 135mm f/2 costs $999 and weight 750g.
I have both APS-C and full frame cameras and I would say that I use my X-H1 or even older X-E1, far more than I do my Nikon D800, despite me having far more Nikon lenses. The advantage of weight is a significant advantage and whilst I can have a f/1.4 aperture on the Nikkor 105mm, most of the time I am stopping down over f/2 so the advantage of full frame often disappears.
Really the big advantage of full frame is low light, APS-C isn't up to the level of full frame sensor in this area. Of course Panasonic and Fujifilm are working on an organic sensor, which should be great in low light, though of course it does drain a lot of power and heat build up issues (my guess you will see it in a Panasonic cine camera first, which can have bigger heat sinks and a larger battery and as the sensor will be global it will be ideal for video. This technology won't be available for a few years yet though.
Sorry we made a mistake and labeled the camera wrong in the video but we are indeed using the Canon 7D Mark II! Yeah I wish we could have tested more cameras but we just opened up the conversation and it's great to hear all of this!
Well that explains the camera (though it is still older than the rest of the cameras and Canon sensor technology does lag behind other manufacturers slightly).
Often the ideas behind the video is good but you seem to get wildly different lenses, which ruin any practicality of the test.
Personally I would say that APC-C is easily the sweetspot when it comes to sensors. I was at a talk by the MPA on Wednesday and at least 4 of us were using Fujifilm (not including the speaker), who was a wedding photographer. One last reason and one of my main reasons for going over to Fujifilm, was the risk of getting tennis elbow. I got tennis elbow during a shoot earlier this year and when using my D800 and I had to take 6 months off of work and now go to a lighter camera, this has cost me a small fortune and put my business on the brink of bankruptcy.
After posting on some photography boards I found that tennis elbow is much more common in the photography industry than I ever thought possible. So the weight/size issue is much more important than just carrying around a camera.
This why we have to buy Medium, Full, APSC and 4/3 ! : )
The best of all worlds!
So put the sweet Canon f/1.2 on the SONY, 7DMKII would have done much better with it. Also the Hasselblad does much better due to it being the only one with a negative crop factor.
yeah, we couldn't get our hands on that many of the same lens. we appreciate you sharing your thoughts with us though!
Lance, what happened to him
you must be referring to lars. he's directing features these days!
Oeps 7D landscape ...the sea flows empty 😉😂🍻
You should have just the same focal lenght on all cameras
Bad comparison.. you are NOT using the fastest lense for each camera.
Sorry you didn't find the comparison helpful, we know that not everyone will have the fastest lens for each camera and we didn't either, so we try to make do with the lenses that we can get a hold of to film :) Let us know which lenses you think would be the best for each camera!
I was just kidding.. good job.. LOL
Ahhhh, gotcha. Thanks for watching!
As much as you tried to control these tests, the real world is much more complex. On the low light (F7.0, ISO 1600) photos, why wouldn't a skilled photographer shoot that at F7.0 on m43? You can open up the aperture, use the DOF to your advantage and possibly get 2+ stops back on the ISO. Bottom line is all those cameras are capable of taken great images in skilled hands.
This was just a side by side comparison on the importance of the sensor. These cameras all do produce great images with the right lighting conditions and setup.
lol if you can't get professional level photos out of the gh5 or 7d you need to Re think your career path. Also, the xt3 is amazing
We've been hearing great things about the Xt3 it seems to be a favorite. Maybe we'll get our hands on one!
The X1-D isn't exactly a proper Medium Format, it's a bit of a cop out.
Panasonic GH-5 - 17.5x13mm
7D Mkii - 22.4x15mm
Sony - 35.9x24mm
X1-D - 43.8x32.9mm
H6D - 53x40mm
Admittedly the cost ramp is fairly large of course.
Thanks for sharing with us! Which would you suggest as a proper medium format camera?
The Slanted Lens the H6D Is at least reasonably bigger than the 35mm.
I guess I understand why you used the X1 as the comparison, as it’s a more similar sized body and closer in cost.
Nice ..vdo...jp
Thanks for watching! Which camera would you choose?
Who is this video aimed at? Obviously not just the enthusiast photographer! I mean, a Hasselblad, for goodness sake! lol
I use small sensors with wide angle lenses, because bokeh is really boring.
Haha, bokeh is very standard now. We'd love to see your shots! Tag us @theslantedlens on instagram
The Slanted Lens why do like everyone else if it’s standard? I’m really bored with all this bokeh shots with washed out colors. Everyone’s photos looks exactly the same.
Sorry, feel no need of sharing my photos. Thanks anyways! :)
We like bokeh, but it's okay that you don't! You're right that variety is what keeps this industry interesting and progressing.
Lol, "Sony doesn't perform well when you push ISO". But you went with the A7RIII instead of the A7III... questionable camera choices across the board.
we'll see difference when we make a huge print...thats all