Photography showdown: MFT and full format in real-world comparison
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лют 2024
- Dive with me into the comparison between MFT (Micro Four Thirds) and full-frame cameras. We take a look at image quality, depth of field, background resolution and handling. Which system is more convincing? All the answers are in the video - stay tuned! 📸✨
Equipment shown in the video (affiliate links):
Canon R5: adorama.rfvk.net/5gk0GN
Canon RF 600mm f/4 L IS: bhpho.to/48YNuHT
OM-1: bhpho.to/42NJOXC
OM-1 II (successor): bhpho.to/3I8kr9r
Olympus Zuiko 300mm f/4 Pro: bhpho.to/48mDUhf
Leica 200mm f/2.8: bhpho.to/48p1drb
Fast SD card: bhpho.to/3UNv6xO
My software recommendation for de-noise software (affiliate links):
DXO PureRaw 3: tidd.ly/3ZWqi95
Topaz Photo AI 2: www.topazlabs.com/topaz-photo...
Do you want to get better bird pictures? Check out my new E-Book: naturfotografie-fopp.ch/wp/e-...
Do you want to get better bird pictures? Check out my new E-Book: naturfotografie-fopp.ch/wp/e-book-bird-photography/
I shot with the OM-1 and the EM1-X along with every pro lens they offered including the 150-400 4.5 pro. The system was wonderful, accurate and astoundingly bullet proof. Once I started shooting wildlife exclusively in the PNW I switched to full frame canon and the 500 f4 due to the better ISO performance and creamier depth of field. If I stayed in landscape and product however I don’t think I would have switched systems…the computational photography (live ND is literally magic), size and quality throughout Olympus and OM Systems is incredible. But whereas I can shoot at ISO 20,000 w/Canon to capture owls in flight at dusk, I would have an image requiring significant processing with OM System, making it look more like an AI generated pic than a real one. If you shoot landscapes and street or events I do sincerely recommend checking out the OM-1. I don’t think you’d be disappointed, and the live ND filter will change how you shoot forever.
Thanks for sharing your experiences
How about the dynamic range? Will it be issue for landscapes, considering I find most of my beautiful landscape photos are during sunrise and sunset.
Hello,
Thank you for the video and in particular for trying to at least Match the lens choice. So few of the tubers attempting these kind of comparisons do, so well done.
I would not argue that in absolute terms full frame handles noise in low light better than four thirds, nor that it is much easier to obtain a blurry background then with a four thirds system.
For the majority of the population however, the issue, of course, is at what cost, be that monetary, weight, general inconvenience or some mixture of all three.
Relatively few have the financial means to purchase a comprehensive full frame professional system incorporating even a couple of long telephoto prime lenses. Here in the UK such a system would cost almost £30,000.00, even the single lens solution used in your vides would cost £18,674.00. The four thirds system you used costs around one quarter of that!!!
For the vast majority compromises come into play. Cost probably being the most significant but for some it might be that the sheer size and weight of the full frame equipment renders it renders it impractical. For some, the background blur you crave might be less important and for those keen to show something of the environment in which the bird or animal lives the blurry background might be seen to be a disadvantage.
The truth of the matter of course is that one should buy the equipment you can afford and which you both like to use and which allows you to achieve the results you are looking for. This said, for all but the lucky few who are given or loaned equipment from a manufacturer or who have very deep pockets and can afford to buy whatever they want, this involves compromises.
Concerning the OM-1 images:
In the early example of the feather the Canon image is better lit. It’s brighter than the OM-1 image and the subject is larger in the frame. This has implication for the conclusion drawn, if only in terms of the degree of difference.
Later on in the video you present an image which you label as one taken with the OM Camera, but say the image was taken at 200mm / f2.8. This could not have been taken with the Olympus 300mm because that lens is a 300mm prime. I assume you used the Panasonic 200 f2.8, a great lens and certainly capable of producing a more blurry background then the Olympus 300 but not, I understand as sharp a lens and since perceived sharpness impacts image quality, it adds another layer of complication to your findings.
I assume you shot the 300 fully open at 4, or if not no higher then f5.6? The lens is perfectly sharp at these settings and stopping down further will only deprive you of light and increase the depth of field you crave?
Also, in the menu settings did you make sure to set the following:-
OM-1 / Menu 1 - Green Tab / Page 3 / Noise Filter Off or at most set to Low / Low Iso Processing set to Detail Priority / Noise Reduction set to Auto.
Traditionally the Olympus Noise Filter Off settings was too aggressively applied and the Standard setting tended to result in a loss of detail in the images, best described as blocking or smearing.
Returning to the cost benefit analysis. The Cannon Lens used costs £14,175.00 here in the UK. The Olympus 300 f4 a mere £2,599.00. The R5 is £4,499.00, the OM1 Mk 2 is £2,199.00. In combination the totals come to £18,674 and £4797.00, making the Canon combination just over four times as expensive!!! The obvious question one has to ask is whether the Canon combination is four times better than the OM Systems combination?
For those who are determined to capture a particular look and who are not prepared to accept a slight increase in noise or adopt a workflow which incorporates a quality noise reduction software and who can afford the Canon combination, the answer is probably yes. Other might say, the financial cost and practicality issues are too much and seek a solution elsewhere.
Given the cost of the Canon equipment I would suggest you try another experiment and see if you can secure a loan from OM Systems of the 150-400mm f4.5. Some argue that it is not as sharp as the 300 f4 prime you used and that would seem sensible given that it’s much easier to design a prime lens than the zoom. However I beg to suggest that once you try the 150-400 the very real benefits of the lighter and more flexible OM-System will be fully realised and you’ll better understand why even some dedicated full frame users are prepared to trade the absolute potential improved noise performance of full frame, for the convenience and cost advantage of the OM-System alternative.
Enjoy your choice and happy trails
Thanks for your detailed comment. I totally agree, money is a very important factor. I just heard from some people that fullframe has NO advantages, and that’s simply not true. Both systems have their pros and cons.
The lighting and distance in the comparison shot was exactly the same. But I had the impression that the OM-1 was slightly more dull and dark. Maybe they „cheated“ a bit with the ISO settings? But anyway, that’s not a fault of the test setup.
I did the comparison with the 300/4 wide open and also never stopped it down in the field. For some situations I also used the Panasonic 200/2.8 which gave me very sharp results as well. But the comparison tests were all done with the Olympus 300/4.
Regarding the noise settings: they usually only influence the jpeg, not the raw image
Again, thanks for the detailed comment
The 200/2.8 is sharper than the 300/4.
Given the same shooting distance, the 300/4 will produce a blurrier background.
2.8*1.5=4.2
300/4.2 vs 300/4
A very well written and detailed description of the differences between these two systems. I shoot the OM-1 and find that the dramatically smaller size of the MFT system overall gets me far more pictures than I would have gotten if I were faced with lugging a dramatically larger FF system. The best camera is the one you have with you, as they say. Secondly, I simply couldn't afford the example Canon system in this review, so I find the occasional IQ differences between the OM-1 and the R5 very easy to accept, especially with the amazing AI powered image cleanup software tools available today.
Denoising algorithms have gotten so good recently that it doesn't really make much sense to look at noise samples without any denoising done - so thanks for also adding the more realistic example with denoised results!
Thanks 😊
Nice video! I enjoyed it a lot. I used to shoot Canon and about 18 months ago I switched to OMS. I was thinking of buying an OM-1 for light travel birding. I still had a Panasonic 100-400mm zoom from a very brief stint with a Panasonic G9. I rented the OM-1 and used it with the Panny lens. I alternated R5 and OM-1 for about 10 days or so. Everyday I walked the lake in the evening shooting pics of similar birds in similar positions and light. When comparing the photos I found that it was difficult to tell much difference between the Canon and the OMS bodies. So I thought about which system I enjoyed using more and eventually went with OMS. At that time the Canon didn’t have a sensibly priced zoom that really works for small birds. I do a lot of Hummingbirds. Also the quad pixel AF of the OM-1 seems noticeably better with less predictable birds like the aforementioned Hummingbird. So I bought into the OMS system and after 6 months of dual use I sold my Canon stuff and the proceeds to buy a couple of lenses that I wanted and take my wife on a vacation that she was really want to do. I think that I personally would be happy with either system. There are some ergonomic issues for me because of the lack of a 3rd dial. My OM-1 has never had to have the battery removed in the field to restart the camera after it froze. My OM-1 has never frozen. My point is that system is perfect. OMS fits my needs right now. I will likely continue with them. Canon has better bird lens selection, especially since the 200-800 came out so I can’t say that I will never change systems. If any company gives me enough reasons to change then I will.
Thanks for sharing your experiences. Very interesting
Interesting review. My take away from this is that once you go through normal post processing, the differences in IQ between the OM System and Canon systems are small. The Canon does give you a benefit in narrower DoF, but this comes with much greater weight/size/cost. If you compare the R5 + 100-500 with the OM System, then even the DoF advantage disappears, however, the Canon system is almost twice the price. You can see why the OM1 is such a popular option for many bird photographers. You need to be quite a dedicated photographer to be carrying around a 600mm f4.
Thanks
Yes, or as you mention: You go for a 100-500 on an R5 instead. Also a great and very flexible combination
Love your input; so true! I can from owning the Sony A1 and A7RIV and several primes and I was so impressed with the OM1 that I sold all my Sony gear and switched to the OM1; it has fantastic IQ, IBIS, portability and has the best weather sealing of all the brands. People who hate on the OM1 have 1. Never used it or 2. Don’t know how to use it and get the best results out of it
Good video. Nothing overly surprising , the IQ advantages of FF are known and real in certain metrics. The intangible factor is probably more along the lines of "getting the shot". Taking a FF body and 600/4 out into the wild is no small undertaking. And then actually using such heavy gear can be difficult for many people. It all depends on what you can carry, what you can use , whether you're being paid for a result and what you can afford.
Sure, not everybody wants to take such big lenses
Excellent presentation Fabian! There are many great camera systems out today and so there is one for everybody. You don't need double digit prices or weight to have a very rewarding experience. After all, the biggest part of any photography is the photographer and not the equipment. The equipment's job is to inspire and facilitate the photographer to get out and take photographs only.
Thanks
The bird of White with the green head is a male Common Merganser as it is called in North America. I use to shoot Canon crop sensor cameras. In 2019 I switched to m4/3 with no regrets and amazing images. I have the OM-1 with the 140-400mm f/4.5 with 1.25tc. Lighter and less expansive gear is always nice. With Sync IS the stabilization is incredible. M4/3 is very capable of getting amazing images with great details. Minimum focus distance is 1.3 metres which is quite close and comes in handy quite often.
Thanks! I found no real difference in stabilisation with the R5 & 600/4 vs OM1 & 300/4 at 1/30 sec
"Blurred backgound" or more precisely "amount of blurr" is a matter of taste. IMO, the background/environment is part of the story. I usually don't like the background completely blurred out. That appears to be a picture in studio or zoo with set background. I do want the background soft so the subjects pops, but I still greatly prefer that context. In that case mft has the advantage because I can use a wider aperture which permits faster shutter/lower ISO. Also, as to IQ, yes, the FF has a head start, however, if I'm using a lower ISO or software such as DXO DEEP PRIME noise and details are improved to approximately even. For my needs, OM-1 has been hands down the better option (Bonus: I use the saved $$ for photo trips and I can carry the system for miles. A camera is of no value if you don't have it with you. ) In the end you are right on...purchase what you like. Use what you enjoy using. Both systems are fantastic and were the dreams of photographers not that long ago.
Thanks! I also prefer some context in the background in many situations - but not always. And with fullframe I just have both options (since I can always stop down if I want that look)
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I often shoot at 300-800mm (with 2xTC) and I find the DOF to be too shallow even with an OM1, so I need to reduce the aperture by two clicks. The MFT's deeper DOF is an advantage in this case. Not so much for portraits, but even there, from f1.8 lower there is plenty of bokeh to be had. Another advantage is when shooting macro, where you want the largest DOF possible.
Interesting video Fabian - thank you.
I went from Canon DSLR to MFT a few years ago, mainly for the lighter weight of MFT. I mainly shoot birds and motor sport using Olympus 40-150 f2.8 Pro and the Panasonic Leica 200 f2.8 on M1x and EM1 mkiii. Looking back over my images - yes those of the 1Dx are much better in low light - no doubt about it. In good light, not so much; Those taken with 7Dmkii - very slightly better in low light, in good light - no difference.
I would suggest that, while, say, a 200mm lens on MFT gives a field of view of a 400 on ff, it remains a 200 with regard to compression, which affects the background . However, when shooting at f2.8, the depth of field compares to f5.6 ff, but you get two extra stops of light for a similar depth of field, which obviously helps in the noise stakes. It's a minefield isn't it? As you suggest, at the end of the day, it all boils down to what one can afford - in cost and weight. Just don't worry about such things, simply go out and take photos and enjoy whatever you are doing.
As a by they way, I often use the 2 x internal digital zoom on the Olympus cameras (you need a very good lens) and the results in good light can be quite acceptable. Consider the 200 mm lens - 200 x 2 (crop factor) x 2 internal zoom = 800mm and I still can use f2.8! Having tried 2 x converters on both Canon and Olympus, I find the digital zoom far superior!
Thanks! I never use the internal zoom, I prefer to crop on the PC if needed (but not by 2x)
Hi Fabian! This was a great comparison. Yes, the physical size and cost of the Canon gear is much more, but I consider this a valid test, as your effective focal length was equivalent. Yes, you could try a 300mm f/4 on the Canon and crop in, but I bet the OM-1 might win on that in terms of noise and detail. I have met a few people who shoot with OM and one in particular uses that 300mm lens and loves it. If you're not comfortable with a huge rig and spending lots of money, the OM is the way to go. The only real weight and price equivalent would be the Canon R7 and 100-500, which might edge out the OM with this lens, and certainly if used with the OM 100-400.
The English name of the mergansers in your photos is Common Merganser. The hooded merganser male does have a big white patch on its head so it's just as easy to blow out as the body of the common merganser. I always have to dial down the highlights a lot on both species.
Thanks a lot for your comment and the correction for the bird name!
Regarding the image stabilization, 1/30s is not really stressing IS system that much. Try 1/5s with both systems and you will see clear difference.
Did you try that with the 300/4? But I will do so! And update it here in the comments 😊
I would add my vote to requesting a more demanding Image Stabilization test between the two systems.
I'd also be interested in the time for which the rig was actually continuously held to the eye - was it a couple of seconds or a couple of minutes? Shooting a 10 min video clip of something would make for an interesting comparison too.
Good job with the comparison. In your next video, I hope you do a comparison of the pre-capture mode for both cameras, especially when maxing out the buffer on each camera and how useful the feature is on each. Looking forward to more videos from you!
Thanks! The R5 does not have pre-capture, but all Canon cameras released since 2022 do. But I will compare the OM-1 to another camera soon 😊
Fabian this is the comprehensive video I have been waiting for. Your thoughts are very similar to my own findings. I was an Olympus user but changed to Sony before the OM1 came on the scene, recent tests with the OM1 confirm to me that now I am at retirement age the m/43 system is the one for hikes and bird photography where long distances are necessary. One major oint I have gathered is that your using the 300mm which is a very sharp lens, nearly comparable to the £6000 English pounds Zoom. I think that with M/43 its very important you choose the top lenses. Having said that would be great to see what you think of the Olympus 100-400mm which has such varied reviews on UA-cam..Congrats on the Images you provided here for us to compare. Regards...keeep up the great work.
Thanks a lot!
I changed from Canon Full frame to OM1 simply because of portability, getting long in the tooth the big stuff is much harder to walk with and use. The olympus system is impressive for MFT and I don't regret the move. Thanks for an unbiased video.
Thanks
Great video and very well explained, thank you Fabian
Thanks
I became pro in the 60s with a Nikon F, so I never worried about the weight of full frame lenses. By my 70 s the lightweight lenses of m4/3 make it my choice is m4/3. Great to see the differences objectively compared.thanks.
Thanks
Fantastically helpful video Fabian.
I own and shoot a Panasonic G9, and have wondered whether to switch to a larger format system.
Videos such as yours - impartial, wildlife focussed and with concrete examples - are invaluable in weighing up the decision.
My takeaway is that the detail coming out a full frame, higher resolution sensor is likely going to convince me to pick up a larger system, even at the expense of greater weight.
Thanks a lot 😊
I have both m43rds and full-frame systems. Unfortunately, the increased cost of full frame isn't just weight. There are other factors such as ease of use, convenience, and cost. My m43rds system is composed of mostly Pro grade lenses, whereas my full-frame system is more of a mix. The reasons are price and weight. Before diving in, you might want to see what the larger format will cost you on those fronts. Another, little discussed consideration is file size. A 16, or 20MP raw from a micro four-thirds camera is pretty small compared to the 30 or 40 MP images that you'll have to store from the larger unit. If you take a lot of photos, it will add up quickly both on primary storage media and on your backup media, again increasing cost. Even filters, and other accessories tend to be bigger, heavier, and more expensive. I use a little Nisi kit which easily fits in my four-thirds bag, and its close to half the bulk of the PolarPro kit I take along for the full frame. Anyway, food for thought. Incidentally, most of the time (probably 80%), I pick up my old Olympus kit over the Canon just because it is so convenient and fun to use. Those aspects shouldn't be underrated.
I shoot nikon z8 and 400mm f/2.8 + tc (so more in the r5 range) and woud have tought the difference in quality would have been much bigger.
Great video and info.
Thanks!
This was a good review, thank you. I was, until recently, shooting both OM-1 with the 300mm f4 and 150-400 f4.5 and Nikon Z9 with Sigma 120-300 f2.8, 400 mm f4.5 and 180-600 for wildlife and sports. As much as I liked the Olympus gear, I was frustrated by the comparatively poor low light capabilities. To be clear, I’m not overwhelmed by the 180-600 f6.3. Even comparing the very good Olympus 40-150 mm f2.8 to the Sigma 120-300 mm f2.8 on the Z9, there was no contest in low light. These results and my findings, which were similar to yours, lead me to selling the Olympus gear and getting faster Z mount glass. The decision was not easy as there are many great features in the OM gear that aren’t in other systems. IAFTER 4 years of using both systems, if shooting in low light, I had to go with FF.
I feel that low light frustration, I am no professional, and own mft because I can find it second hand for really cheap😅. I wish panasonic or olympus made a f1.7 200mm lens, I’m using the samyang 135mm with the mc14, makes it about a 200m f2.8, and this helps so much with keeping the iso below 2000, but no autofocus can make it a pain.
Absolutely, f/2.8 on full frame means the sensor gathers 4x as much light as a m43 sensor with an f/2.8 lens with the same shutter speed so that’s to be expected. You’d need ISO 200 on m43 to match ISO 800 on full frame, once you can drop your full frame ISO lower than 800, there is no equivalent in m43 once you account for sensor size. It’s pretty punishing when you realise ISO 1000 on Olympus is equivalent to the noise at iso 4000 on full frame.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with those cameras
Very interesting comparison, thank you !
Thanks!
Thanks for this great video! Your image tests were pretty much same what I had when testing Om1 against Sony. It seems that in cameras and lenses everything is a compromise. If you shrink size you will reduce price and weight, you will lose some image quality. And of course reverse is also true. If you correct an aberration of lens, usually some other flaw will emerge. You just have to find combination that fits you own preference. I'm glad we have lots of alternatives to choose from nowadays.
I agree 100% 😊
Very nice review and it gave me another confirmation that, after having basically switch completely to FF for my nature photography, the only u4/3 lens that makes send to hold on for me is that fantastic 300 F4 PRO, it’s up there with one of the very best Canon primes in terms of sharpness and it’s so lite and svelte to carry and handle in the field when you have to trek! Also it’s quite amazing how AI-based noise reduction software can help in close the gap with FF in terms of final results, especially for web viewing.
Thanks
Very interesting video, thanks. To be honest I thought the denoised 4000ISO photo from the OM1 was actually nicer than the denoised one from the Canon.
So for me, the OM option with AI denoise software would really be the ultimate solution. Quite a surprise!
Interesting, I find that the Canon image shows much more details
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography it's hard to tell in great detail on my phone screen I suppose!
Thank you for sharing the two-camera comparison. 1 LIKE from Singapore.
Thanks
Thanks for this review Fabian. Well done! I have the r5 with the 600 F4 Mark ii. Interesting to hear you that the mark iii is significantly better in terms of image stabilization.
I never used the vIII, I have the RF version
Thank you for the video, it was very interesting.
Happy to hear that
Very useful comparison as at one point I was considering the OM1 + 300mm F4. In the end I got the cheaper option. The Canon R7 although apsc is same or slightly higher pixel density and you get the 32mp instead of OM's 20mp. so there is some space to crop and have a similar image. Also I have a similar reach with my 300mm F2.8LIS but it''s F2.8 instead of F4 so even if I put on a 2x or 1.4x converter I still have relatively great light (600mm @ F5.6, 420@F4). The only down side is I wish Canon treated apsc like it used to as a pro camera. My lens I got new but you can pick up a used 300mm F2.8LIS at a reasonable price. My biggest regret is the lack of stacked sensor so om1 still wins. I am still thinking about keeping this kit as like a backup while I think about Nikon Z8 or hoping good chance for Nikon stacked pro apsc.
R7 is nowhere near the om1.
Thanks and have fun!
A useful comparison, thanks. As I get older, the promise of "smaller/lighter" has much appeal, but I'm still not convinced. For example, my RF 100-500 (with an effective field of view of 160-800 mm on my APSC R7) weighs 3 lbs. In comparison, the OM 100-400 (FOV = 200-800 mm) weighs 2.7 lbs, a trivial difference. I would of course love to see a head-to-head comparison of these two set-ups, but I'm guessing the larger APSC sensor offers less noise and better low light performance. In fact, I chose the R7 for birds/widlife quite deliberately as a compromise between full frame and MFT, with excellent bird eye-tracking. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for the feedback!
Please go watch Duane Pattons review on the OM1; he said it was a stellar camera with fantastic autofocus and great image quality. There are many videos out there praising the OM1 but his(Duades) video really did the camera justice. Please check out the video I recommended above and you’ll find my comments to be more than true/accurate:) I actually came from owning the Sony A1 and several primes and was so impressed by the OM1, I sold all my gear and made the switch and haven’t looked back.
I currently use the OM1 and the 300 f4 and the 150-400 and it’s an AMAZING setup!
Thanks
Hi Fabian - back again with a question I thought you might have some insight on :)
One of the core benefits of m43 is reach, due to the crop factor of the sensor. However, images from sensors with more megapixels can be cropped to increase reach.
I know resolution and noise perceptibility are impacted by cropping - but are sensor features such as dynamic/tonal range and exposure recovery also affected by cropping? Ie will a 20MP image cropped from a 46MP Nikon Z8 RAW still have the same editing latitude as the full image, or will the ability to push/pull shadows and highlights be reduced, as they are with a m43 sensor?
The answer is probably very simple, but I'm struggling to get my head around it 😅 cheers
That‘s a good question. I‘m actually not sure. I would think they should stay the same, but no guarantee 😉
Hi, excuse my bad English, I follow your UA-cam videos and I think you do a thorough and honest review of photography equipment. I am in the situation of buying new photo equipment for bird photography and am not sure what to choose. I ask you your honest opinion, if you had nothing before which camera would you choose between Nikon Z8 - 180-600mm or Canon eos R5 - 100-500mm?
I did a comparison video about these two lenses, check them on my channel 😊
Pro Capture and automatic focus stacking would be a major inducement to go with something like an OM-1. And I would go for the 150-400mm F/4.5 lens.
Yes, the R6 II is clearly better than the R5 in this regard
hi Fabian
thanks again for this comparison. It is completely logical that a larger censor and more megapixels give better performance than a camera with a much smaller censor and more than 50% fewer pixels. So far no surprises for me. perhaps a comparison with the Canon R6 MK II would be a better comparison.
that said, the Om-1 does very well. certainly take into account that the Om-1, the Benjamin and the R5 are gigantic, a greater contrast is almost impossible.
Thanks! Unfortunately, I don’t habe an R6 II
thanks for the video. A comparison I would be interested, would be:
Canon R6 mk2 + 200-800mm lens vs Om 1 + 300/4 + 1.4TC. Seems about same megapixels, weight, price! and both normal and low light conditions (dawn or dusk). What am I getting wrong? (update once one includes the TC the OM system is still lighter but not by much)
I care about bird finding (hard conditions behind branches) and birds in flight.
Yes, that would be interesting! The Canon would be way more flexible (zoom) and also allow a nicer background blur. But I could not do a side by side comparison so far.
When comparing aspect ratios, in order to calculate equivalent focal lengths for MFT and FF, we need to keep in mind that the field of view will be the same, say, at 200 mm MFT and 400 mm FF, only when measured diagonally. Because the 4:3 aspect renders the image taller, in order to achieve the same width as in the 3:2 ratio, we need to use a slightly shorter focal length (if possible) or move back. Conversely, if we wanted to achieve the same height of the frame on the FF camera as on the MFT camera, we'd need to reduce the focal length of our FF lens or move back. I must say I like the 3:2 aspect more because if Im interested in the scene as it unfolds horizontally, I get a wider perspective. If vertically - a taller perspective. The 4:3 ratio seems to be a bit awkward, often including more of the scene than I wish both vertically and horizontally, than the 3:2 ratio would.
I also prefer the 3:2 in 95% of the situations
Great comparison - thanks. I shoot both OM1 300 f4 and R5 500 f4 and 100-500. I naturally go for the R5 for most things but the OM1 has its uses and I would not sell it. Pro-capture and the fast frame rates make it invaluable for fast moving stuff (in good light). The weight difference is negligible between the om1 300f4 combo and the r5 with the 100-500. The real winner for me with the r5 full frame is the ability to shoot wider and confidently crop in, sometimes to some ridiculous levels. It’s all personal preference though. You have no excuses with either system not to get excellent results.
Thanks!
That’s why people moved from the 300 f4 to the 150-400 with built in 1.25x teleconverter. I LOVE the 150-400 because it has some serous reach and it’s truly a masterpiece of a lens. I was so impressed by the IQ and reach of the 150-400 that I sold all my Sony gear. Thus, when you have 1000mm at your disposal, you don’t have to worry about cropping. I rarely, if ever, crop because I am to get close enough to my subjects with the extensive reach and fill the frame.
That's a fair review, Fabian ! Both system have advantages and desadvantages.
Regarding background blur, I am curious if you ever tried to amplify it by software. By example LightRoom has a new module which recognizes the subject automatically and applies blur on the background (it takes 5 seconds to apply the blur). The result is not always perfect, but in 95% of the case is fine. Did you tried to use such a software ?
No, I prefer to have the result in camera. In many competitions this is also not allowed
I like that feature when I can’t get it in camera, but I don’t enter competitions. Sometimes with the Sony 200-600mm at f/6.3 there’ll be a hedge or something that looks a bit busy, I find it useful for making that less distracting.
Nice comparison thanks! I feel you have undersold the stabilisation on the OM system. I do appreciate that for moving wildlife this is irrelevant but for slower moments the stabilisation allows 1/10 sec without a problem. I have a 100-400mm lens. My main gear is Nikon full frame mirrorless and I would not even try such shutter speeds without a nearby wall or such...
1/30 is no problem with my 600/4 on fullframe. But I will retry the MFT at really slow shutter speeds
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Wow, you must have ice in your veins! If you had the light Nikon Z 600mm f4.5 it could be possible but isn’t the Canon 600mm f4 fairly heavy (like the Nikon F 600mm f4)?
I don't mind noise that looks like film grain. I still don't understand the aversion to grain like noise. I do mind color noise from digital sensors and the Canon has more of that. It's genuinely impressive what Olympus is able to do with two stops less light.
That‘s certainly also personal preference 😊
Well, a few of my friends just switched from R5 and 600mm F4 to OM1 Mark II and either 300mm F4 or 200mm F2.8 lenses. One soon to get 150-400mm F4.5 lens. As we get older, we no longer have that physical strength and the joy of taking photos and hiking just goes away. I don't think I have heard you mentioned anything about SS when comparing the stabilization. Speaking of my own experiences and my friends how just switched, the results are dramatic once you get lower than 1/15 SS. I am talking about shooting at 600mm equivalent. For sure, there is deny the quality you can get with the FF. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses.
I did my tests at 1/30 Second at 600mm, there I didn’t see a better performance of the OM-1. but I will try with a longer shutter speed
Nice comparison with feather, R5 need to go up to 12800 ISO to match OM-1 400 ISO detail quality.
Daam, I knew difference was big because of sensor size , but didn't expect that difference will be so huge... im shocked :D
Thanks!
Fabian if you had to choose the Canon or OMS for aviation photography, which would you go with?
I don’t really shoot airplanes. But for birds in flight clearly Canon
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography thank you. I believe they are similar in theory in shooting birds and airplanes, well at airshows anyway, airliners are predictable in comparison. I bought a Canon R7 and I'm going to buy the Canon L 70-200mm and pair it with the 2x tele. I think it will provide a good all around setup.
Be aware that the RF70-200 can not be used with extenders!
I’ve been using the EOS 1D series for two decades. I switched to MFT because of the weight. I guess my customers do not see a difference.
As a weddingphotographer I use the 1.2 primes. My whole body said „thank You“!
To be fair, switching from a 1D to an R6 II would also have made the setup a lot lighter 😉
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I’ve been waiting for a Canon dslm a very long time, but they were tooooooo slow
I think if wildlife or sports was THE main thing I did most of the time, I would go with the full frame system. It just looks a lot better in my opinion, especially the ability to blur out the background for subject isolation.
Yes, i think the same 😊
It would be great if you could compare against the 150-400 that allows combined lens and camera stabilization.
Isn‘t the 300/4 IS also doing that?
The 300mm also has Sync IS.
Great video.
Thanks
I come from Nikon FF (sold all), I use the OM1 with the 300mm F4 Pro, the 40-150 F2.8 Pro and both TC - next to that (for video) I use the G9II (with the same lenses) - the portability is the greatest plus for me, next to that as you mentioned it is the price, especially the 300 F4 Pro is extreme sharp (at the start I used the 100-400 olympus - I sold that one as I was not happy with it. You can not get a 600mm prime at F4 for the price compared to Nikon/Canon. I bought the 300 F4 Pro used fo half the new price.
Have fun!
I've been shooting the G9 and 100-400mm for almost three years now. I have friends and acquaintances who shoot the Nikon D850, the Sony R7Mk5 with 200-600mm lens and the Canon R5 and R6 with the 100-500mm lens. There's no way MFT can really compete with the big FF primes but there's no way the big primes can compete with the portability of MFT which is its biggest draw. The competition between FF and MFT really heats up when you pit big sensor cameras with long, slow zooms against MFT options. Pros are probably willing to pay more but nobody likes to carry extra weight unless they feel it's necessary and that's where MFT can close the gap IF it provides "good enough" results, especially for images often viewed on phones or pads. However, how my photography day goes often depends on how close I think I came to duplicating full-frame results. It's the old I-want-my-diet-soda-to-taste-like-the-real-thing conundrum :)
I’ve been shooting for 3 years. I started with the G9, and sold it pretty quick. It uses an older focus technology and I had too many soft shots. The size was great though! I went with the R5 100-500. I can’t say enough good things about that lens. Lightweight, sharp at 7.1 fully open. Weather sealed. You can shoot macro style due to min focus distance, landscapes at 100 and wildlife. My next upgrade will be seeing if canon improves the crop mode in the R5 ii or upgrades the R7 ii. I’m looking to get reach in the camera. You should try and rent that lens for an outing and see what you think! Happy shooting!
@@Kellysher I've been tempted to do what you did for some time now but I really like the ergonomics of the G9 (haven't tried the new G9 yet), the 100-400mm is very sharp, somewhat lighter than even the Canon 100-500 and I've just discovered the 2x digital converter in the G9 which, while not as good or consistent as an optical converter, is much more convenient. (Watch out if they ever put an iZoom version of the converter into the G9). However, a recent encounter with a birder shooting the Canon R5 and 100-500mm really impressed me with her image quality and ability to crop into the photo compared to what I was getting even with a 300mm = advantage. I retired from newspaper photography while using the D700 and its 11-meg sensor. The difference between then and now in FF tech is shocking...but so are the prices, another consideration. I did rent an R7 and 600mm f11 lens and found myself thinking if they could just get rid of the shutter shock and rolling shutter and stuff my imagined Mk 2 version of the R7 into the R3 body, well, I would definitely look into selling a kidney. The big sensors have a magic all their own and their low-light capability make slow zooms good enough to compete with big prime glass, at least in the minds of many photographers. "Good enough" has, until now, been THE big reason for MFT. I appreciated your reply.
It sure is a matter of priorities
I own two camera systems. I have a
Z8 and 600mm PF 6.3 and the OM-1 and 300mm f4. I also have 1.4 TC for both systems and many other lenses. The Nikon I use excluseivly for birds and at higher ISO gives better results. However, I miss many shots with the Nikon that I get with the OM-1. The OM-1 has a close focus of 1.2m at 840mm equivelant, the Nikon is 4m.
I got beautiful Chetti's warbler, wren and fire crest at close quarters with the OM-1 that would not be possible on the Nikon. Because taken so close the detail is incredible on the Miro 4/3. For detail there in no substitute for being close to the subject.
The reason I have two systems is I shoot birds (mainly shore) and landscape in the winter (UK) - Nikon full frame. Then in the warmer months I shoot birds, butterflies, solitary bees, wasps in flight, macro stacking. For this there is inly one camera - the OM-1. I use the 300mm +1.4TC (840mm full frame) with close focus of 1.4m to do butterflies and bees. I also have the incredible 90mm macro with 1.4TC (5.6x magnification) for insects and flower parts.
It can do it all and to a great standard with the OM-1. The Nikon can only do the birds at distance it can not do the insects as well.
The OM-1, has better stabalisation. Can shoot 120fps raw. Can do pre capture of butterfly's, birds etc in raw (my Nikon is jpeg).
I was doing focus stacks of the pollen on a day lillie at 10x full frame magnification (with raynox). You can see on the screen in real time the focus moving through the image. The pollen looks incredible.
To reduce the OM-1s limitation to background blurr and noise is not to look at the whole picture.
I am lucky enough to have the funds to own both systems. If I had to choose only one system it would be the OM-1 hands down no contest. I do more than bird photography.
Both systems are good at street photography but I like my Ricoh GRiiix for that. The camera that I always have on me.
...agreed om-1 is better. Especially pro capture with raw file either 50 fps or 120 fps...big game changer.
I am planning to upgrade to om-1 mark 2 for bigger buffer and live gnd. 😊
Well done for choosing om-1. 😊
Thanks for sharing!
Interesting...I have OM-1 with both 300/4 and 150-400, and am considering switching to Z8 + 600PF. I'm aware the 600PF min focusing distance is poor, but I may have underestimated how much of an impact it has in practice.
Hi, if you are only into bird photography then the Z8 + 600pf will give you better images. Not necessarily better autofocus or sharpness but better colour saturation and background blur. The photos look better. Also, the 300 f4 is equivalent to a full-frame 600 if the full frame is 20MP. However, the Z8 is 45MP, and if you take the fact that you can crop into the image further it is more like a 900mm in OM-1 terms. The Z8 also handles high ISO much better than the OM-1.
Here in the UK in the winter I only shoot birds, landscapes, and street. The Z8 is perfect for this. In the warmer months when the insects come out, I will put the Z8 away and only use the OM-1. Then I shoot insects, birds, bees, beetles, bugs all insects, wildlife, and fungus. (My partner is a senior academic and specializes in pollinators and chalk grasslands). The OM-1 is on another level above the full frame Z8 for this photograph. For birds and landscapes, the Z8 will shoot better files. For macro, insects, and insects in flight, the Z8 is useless compared to the OM-1. Oh, and I do get plenty of really good shots of birds with the OM-1 and close shots I could not get with the Z8 and 600pf.
I am lucky to be able to afford to have both systems but if I had to choose only one it would be the OM-1 with the 300 f4, 1.4TC, and 90mm macro. The Z8 is in the Stone Age compared to the OM-1 for macro/insect photography capability. I hope this helps.
@@youphototube thanks, that helps a lot. I don't shoot macro. I do get very close to birds and wildlife sometimes because I love shooting bird portraits. I like to get as close as I can and fill the frame as much as possible. Because of this, I would often use my 300/4+2x TC at very short distances (under 6 meters shooting a large bird) to get more feather detail for headshots. A concern I have is that the 600PF's subpar minimum focusing distance would get in my way of maximizing the image quality in these very close shooting scenarios. With such close ups, I'd imagine the M43 setup would be able to get closer to the subject, allowing me to put more pixels on the subject (since I would still be using as high of a focal length as possible, even with close up shots).
How do you find the AF performance between these two setups?
I can't offer any useful comment about supertelezooms on pro cameras, I am an amateur on a small budget. I can say, that m43 goes in every direction you can think of. The pro Olympus/OM system lenses, the Panasonic Leica lenses, but also the body cap lenses for fun, the amusingly small travelzoom lenses (12-32mm, it's crazy), the very compact small primes with very high quality etc etc etc. To me, that's what m43 allows me to do.
Have fun 👍🏻😊
Thanks
Thanks for the support!
I’m heading to Costa Rica for 6 weeks or so. In my bag I’ll have the OM-1 with 300 f/4 pro (600 equivalent) plus 40-150mm f/2.8 plus 60mm f/2.8 macro, along with a second E-M5 Mk 3 body and a 20mm f/1.4 pro. Oh - and a 7-14mm f/2.8 pro. I can shoot ants , waterfalls, frogs, jaguars, toucans, beachscapes, etc. Definitely full frame has better image quality and subject separation, but try carrying all the gear to match what I can shoot!
Yes, I have been to Costa Rica a few Months ago with 14-35, 35/1.8, 50/1.8, 70-200/2.8, 100/2.8, 600/4 + extender and several camera bodies. I really enjoyed it, especially since I sometimes hit 16‘000 ISO even when shooting at f/4
It seems everyone obsesses over background blur advantage of FF over MFT. But there is a caveats to that especially for birds in flight and such. Yes if you have a static subject and you want that better bokeh go with FF. But for birds in flight and other fast moving subject matter I much prefer that extra DOF of MFT You nail the eyes and you will find in a lot of cases the rest of the animal is still in more focus as well. Shallow DOF is not always the advantage of FF that many think it is. It just means you better nail your focus with FF as there is less allowance for slight errors such as it focused on an ear vs an eye. Where a MFT would get them both in focus due twice the DOF and still give a pleasing bokeh
Sure, but you can always stop down an FF lens if needed. On the other hand, you can’t open a 300/4 more on an MFT 😉
For those who mostly share their pictures on social media or struggle to carry heavy gear, it makes a whole lot of sense to go for cheaper and lighter alternative. A point that is often missed by many such people for the perceived advantages of a FF system.
Yes, if you can’t carry the heavy equipment it will definitely not be useful at home on the shelf 😉
I am using MFT professionally for weddings. Also, have the Panasonic Leica 100-400 for occasional recreational nature photography. Awesom lens. The thing about your comparisons and all the others is that they are not practical. Why not? Because in real life nobody takes pictures with two cameras for comparisons. No clients of mine ever complained. If we have two pictures, we can compare them. But in life this is never the case. Also, a friend of mine says she simply is forced to stop down her Canon FF lenses to 2.4 or 2.8 to get enough depth of field for wedding portraits, or the keeper rate is very low. But I confidently use my 17/1.2 and 45/1.2 wide open. This allows using 1600 instead of 6400, for example, and the advantage of FF vanishes. Also, I feel sorry for wedding photographers who are forced to carry their bulky 70-200/2.8 lenses in case they need more reach. I just put on my minuscule Olympus 75/1.8 (150 eqv.). Granted, for bird photography, needs are probably different.
Thanks for your comment. Yes, if you need to stop down anyway, there is no point in dragging a fast prime lens on a fullframe around. But as you say, this is quite different in bird photography as I shoot wide open very often
Great video Fabian. Very interesting. I shoot with the OM1 and with modern noise reduction…the differences between FF and M43 have been drastically reduced. Well done for a fab vid🙏👍😀
Thanks
But you can apply same noise reduction also to FF and have even better results
you should test the R5 with canon 300 mm f2,8 versus that OM and the 300mm f 4,0, crop the canon images so you get the same size on subject. Then you would have about the same effective sensor size
Hmm, I don’t see why I would do that in real life. If I want 600mm I don’t use a 300/2.8 and crop
With AI denoise these days, the only real differ between the camera is background blue and size/weight. Couldn't care less about noise as Topaz is taking care of that easily. I chose the OM-1 MK2 because I'm ok with the background blue the 300 f4 is capable of producing. In return, I am very versatile. I can go anywherr with this combo without carrying a tank with me. To me this is worth way more than background blur (which you can also do with AI these days if you really want to).
That‘s of course personal preference. But I found the images at 25‘600 iso not usable anymore for prints, not even with topaz.
Well, the R5 is just a fantastic camera, and if I could get close enough to my birds, I'd still own one. But reach is SO much more important for me. I'm currently shooting with the R7, but I'm super impressed by the OM1, especially with the new 150-600, as a 1200mm equivalent is pretty close to what I prefer.
This is of course personal preference. My favorite lens is the RF100-300 😉
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I had not even looked at that lens. I'm sure it would be a fantastic lens, as long as it gave you enough reach.
Also, I'm sure it would do great with teleconverters.... But I've always felt like TC's should be use here and there, when you really need them. If you need to use one all the time, that tells me the lens is just not long enough.....
So far I used my RF100-300/2.8 about 70% without extenders and 30% with 1.4x. If I need more reach I still have my RF600/4
Very nice and useful video about these two systems. Also seems to be quit objective in the way you test. But, without meaning to criticize, it also seems a bit unfair. The R5 is a 45 megapixel camera and i also assume the lens quality of the 600mm should be better.
As i buyer i would be very interested in a comparison not on thecnical specs but more on value for money. So a comparison with a R6 (also 20mb) and and a RF 100-500. That would give me an insight of what would be best for me regarding the amount of money i can spend. Would like to see such a comparison……. 😇
Nevertheless thanks for the work you did on this issue.
Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately I don’t own an R6
I'm not reading all the comments to see if anyone else mentioned this. A 300mm f/4 lens on a m4/3 camera has the field of view of a 600mm lens on a FF camera and the depth of field of f/8 on that full frame camera. So, you could have tested this by doing a comparison at f/8 on the canon combo versus f/4 on the OMS. The background should look close to the same. If you want a smoother background, full frame will win easily using the same aperture. But yes, as a form of mitigation, the closer you are to your subject, the shallower the depth of field. But by doing that, you are changing the image captured...and won't have a true comparison between the systems. So, one has to decide whether they want a smaller, less expensive camera system or a larger, heavier, more expensive system that takes slightly better images.
Yes, but if you want a smoother background and better image quality, full frame is basically the only option
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Oh yeah, what about medium format?!?!? I'm kidding, kind of. Don't know that there are fast enough lenses for Medium Format systems. But the image quality on 100 mp sensors is sensational. Of course, there is no equivalent for the 600mm full frame telephoto for medium format. And if there was, you might need a pack mule to carry it!!!
The Goosander is called the Common Merganser in North America.
Thanks!
Definitely there are pros and cons in both, ideally I would love to have all of them! Living in the tropic, a clear advantage to me of owning OM is the water resistant of both camera and Pro lenses. I’ve found myself taking pictures deep in the forest under heavy rain, when with my previous full frame kit i would’ve stopped taking pictures and headed back. Pura vida! 🇨🇷
Thanks! I actually had no problem with my 2 R5 and several lenses in Costa Rica. With heavy rain I just used a raincover
@@FabianFoppNaturephotographyyes but you have to use a rain cover…you don’t need to cover the OM1 or any of its lens because they’re much better weather sealed than Canon, Nikon or Sony
The short answer: the R5 is 2 stops better at base ISO, then the margin narrows after ISO 800 to 1 stop, down the gain scale. The OM-1 is on par with the Sony a6700, which is above average in the crop sensor world. The real problem with OM solutions, is they have very limited large aperture equivalent lenses, and very small megapixel sensors. At the end of the day, if you want an OM camera great, but you’re gonna need another full frame camera with more megapixels for low light/fast shutter work to be competitive professionally.
I assume many MFT users would not want a fast and therefore large lens
Today we have resources... DXO, Topaz, Lightroom with IA to create more background blur and most of the time, the destination of this pictures will be social media. We also want to do movies as well. For me, more video capabilities, more IA in camera and more resources to capture new moments are more important than image quality, and the gap is very close in favor of m4/3.
I don’t like to artificially blur the background. It’s also not allowed in many competitions
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography but most of people don't do that. The brands are working more and more on light lens with f8, f11, etc... This shows something to us.
Canon just released a 100-300/2.8 last summer. I just think we have more options in the future
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography and released lenses like 800mm f11, 100-500 7.1 and 200-800 f/8 as well
If you wanted similar image quality between R5 and M43 You have to expose the M43 with 2 stops more light then you would the R5 at base ISO.
I.e R5 F4 1/1600 vs M43 F4 1/400 should yield very similar IQ results. Hence the reason the M43 community has to always expose to the right. Saturate the sensor with as much light as possible. Bokeh at F4 the M43 300/4 lens you would have to be have the distance from the subject as you would with a 600/4 to obtain similar background blur
Are you able to recover the highlights when you expose to the right?
The problem is that in most situations were I would use 1/1600 on my R5 I also need this shutter speed (i.e. action shots). Choosing 1/400 would lead to a blurry shot
hence this is the issue with M43 physics is the problem. I was just making the point that M43 needs "almost" 2 stops of motor light to equal a FF sensor.@@FabianFoppNaturephotography
The headline message I get for this video is 'for a beginner, I dont recommend 600mm f4'
Certainly one of the points 😊
Use a good noise reduction program and you’ll be more than happy with the OM-1 with 300/fr.
Can you recommend one? Even Topaz and DXO PR3 were struggling at ISO 16‘000 and higher. Also, there is still the issue of background blur
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography topaz photo AI 2024
Yes, I use it. But at these high iso I don’t feel comfortable with MFT images anymore. There fullframe has a huge advantage
The bocca u can't compare at the same f-stop, u have to compare F4 on m43 with F8 on FF.
I know, I also mention this. I wanted to show the difference
No, larger sensor does not capture more light! Light per area is identical. The difference that is interesting are photosites, their size and density. Canon R5 is low resolution sensor with 5.21 MP/cm² pixel density when compared to 20Mpix OM with 9.06 MP/cm² pixel density, because equivallent FF sensor would have 80mpix to be able to crop out 20mpix. And obviously 80mpix FF sensor, once developed, will have very similar issues with noise and difraction like current 20mpix m4/3 sensors have. You can already see similar issues on 60mpix Sony A7R5 sensor with 7.18 MP/cm² pixel density, but still not reaching OM1 level of density.
In case you are only using small fraction of FF frame for lets say shooting a bird or airplane in the middle, then Olympus with the same lens will give you significantly more detail. You can adapt same 600mm Canon EF lens to both cameras and see the difference.
And for me the sweet spot is APS-C which is nice combination of both worlds. But I also use M4/3 EM5III for travelling light.
Yes, light per area is identical. Therefore a larger sensor captures more light in total. Simple physics, still sometimes misunderstood.
I agree on the point that if you crop a 50MP FF image to MfT, it will have less detail than the MFT one (for the reasons you stated). But I never do such heavy crops
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Once you get that future 80mpix FF sensor, you will capture more light in general, but without any positive impact on output. All the advantage of larger photosites on low-res large sensor will be gone when compared to 20Mpix M4/3.
Noise and dynamic range depend only on photosite size (tech generation), not on sensor size. (And of course digital noise reduction processors). Thats why several 24Mpix sensors are low-light champions even though downsized 60Mpix also reduces noise a bit.
Sorry, but you are wrong there. If we compare the same output size, the sensor area is so much more important than pixel size.
As a previous Olympus photographer for several years--I can say there is a night and day difference between Olympus OM and either the Canon, Sony, or Nikon full-frame mirrorless cameras--and its for a point you didn't mention: the sensor megapixels. You know as a bird photographer you are always cropping your photo to enlarge the bird as most birds don't let you get too close--so they rarely fill the entire frame--even if your shooting at 800mm. With Canon's R5 having 45 megapixels compared to OM's 20 megapixels I can extensively crop making the bird fill the entire photo and still retain great detail in the feathers. Try that with the OM-1 and the detail is completely lost. I was shocked at the level of detail the 45 megapixel Canon sensor could capture compared to the 20 megapixel OM sensor. I'll never go back to a 20 megapixel sensor. I wouldn't recommend Olympus for any bird or wildlife photographer who wants to see the details in the eyes, feathers, and fur of the animals they are capturing--it's like discovering you have another pair of eyes. Your review left me feeling the Olympus and Canon systems are about equal. My experience using both systems extensively in the field is quite the opposite.
No, they are clearly not equal! I didn’t want to give this impression.
You can stick a 150-600mm on a m43 camera and you have 20mp at 1200mm equivalent FOV. You don’t need to crop because the sensor already does that. You could use an 800mm lens and crop the r5 image to 1200mm eq, but then you’d still have 20mp at 1200mm full frame equivalent and you may as well be using an APSC canon instead. R7 would give you ~30mp, but the r7 has the same pixel density as m43, so the same physical focal length on the r7 cropped to 20MP will give basically the same FOV as the same focal length used on m43.
"You know as a bird photographer you are always cropping your photo to enlarge the bird...." Are you really a photographer, or a paparazzi ????
If you always crop a lot, then the advantage actually goes to M43. The pixel density is higher. Given the same lens, the M43 body will always outperform a 45MP FF body. Try it yourself. Take a photo with your FF 600/4. Adapt the lens on your M43 body and take the same shot. Crop 2x on the FF photo to achieve the same framing as the M43 photo. What you now see is the difference between 11 and 20MP.
OM1’s biggest problem is focusing on small glass.
They need a Fuji 200 f2 equivalent. Or a 300mm f2.8 you need to make up the difference with the light gather and background blur.
Imagine sigmas 50-100 f1.8
Make some professional glass. Most of their glass is f4 or smaller Aperture.
The R7 comes to life with a 300mm f2.8 version ii.
OM1 can’t compete with the noise and background blur if they don’t compensate with larger aperture
I think they’ve shifted that focus by releasing a 150-600mm…
I don’t think we will see faster glass for MFT anytime soon
FF is overblown, for wildlife and especially video. APS-C may be the better compromise for value, size, weight, lens availability/compatibility. Creamy bokeh/BG equals lousy Depth of Focus.You're going to need to shoot at f/6.3 or f/8 to get a frame-filling bird sharp in both eyes and beak or scapular feathers
I would say it’s a matter of preference. I chose FF
Hello,
I think there is a big missunderstanding all around internet.
In terms of light gathering every fstop lens allow the same quantity of light reaching the sensor never mind the format.
Every f2.8 lens allows the same light, other ideas are vastly wrong.
When an external exposure meter informs you the the right EV for an scene ( combination of ISO, speed and fstop) it works the same for all formats. When using a FF body in case you crop to APSC the picture, does it darken? Not, of course not.
The only matter where a MFT lens is equivalet to double FF lens and fstop is in angle of view and DOF. Nothing else, nothing related to light gathering.
The only reason to use a lower ISO in MFT is because crop sensors are better stabilized and you are able to shoot at slower speed. In case you can not reduce speed because of the subject is moving you will need the same ISO to get the right exposure.
On the other hand to compare a 45MP camera against 20MP camera is not fair in terms of resolution. For sure the image it will be more detailed, just try with 20Mp FF body and compare images.
Regards
It allows the same light per area, hence the same exposure. Since the full frame sensor is bigger, it collects 4x the light (given the same aperture). Quite simple 😊
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography The same light gathered per area unit, yes It is the only factor to bear in mind in order to set the right EV. So in MFT due to smaller area you do not have to set lower ISO. Bigger sensor area has nothing to do and It has no influence on ISO setting. But many people gets the idea that crop sensor camera's lenses are "darker" because many videos generates confusion on wrong concepts.
Ah, yes, I agree. You set the same iso. But the image of the full frame will LOOK much cleaner (around 2 stops)
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Oh my Godnesss. Yes, the sun rises in the east...and no, It has NOTHING TO DO with the sensor size, It is due to a bigger phtotodiode area. An 10MP APSC could have cleaner image than a 60 MP FF, because every phtotodiode would be bigger. It has NOTHING TO do with being a crop sensor or not. The sensor size do not make cleaner images by itself. Is It clear now? And please, stop saying FF gathers more light, because It is not related to EV. The sensor size do not make the image two stop cleaner By itself because It is supoused to gather 4 times more light. It not true that way, It depends on the phtotodiode size, and the treatment of the signal.
Stop saying silly things, they are not for help to anyone ando contribuyes to spread ignorance.
By the way my room's wall is much bigger, what ISO should I set to compare?
@FoppNaturephotography Yes, the sun rises in the east. And no, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SENSOR SIZE. Better ISO performance just has to do with photodiode area. An 10MP APSC sensor could produce cleaner images than a 60MP FF one, due to bigger área of every phtotodiode.
There is no a direct relation to say 4 times bigger sensor area, two stops cleaner. This is not true at all.
All that related to ISO performance has to do with the light gather by EVERY PHOTODIODE, and the conversion of the analog signal into a digital one and all the treatment of it around.
If you have a FF sensor with a lot of megapixels, it would have more resolution but worst ISO performance than a crop one with much lower pixel density. Pixel density is the key not the sensor size. An 80MP FF camera will behave very similar to a 20MP MFT in terms of light. Similar pohotodiodes density.
Imagine a thousand MP medium format sensor with a tremeundous pixel density and tiny photodiodes. Great resolución poor results un low light despite being very big size.
Is it clear now? Quite simple.
Please, do not contribute to spread ignorance for longer.
you demonstrated the obvious. Which sometimes it is good to remind to people. But I do not think that almost anyone here is on the market wondering if to spend X or for 4X for a setup and wants to decide based on iso performance (the denoising software is a miracle further making such decision making ridiculous) or depth of field showcased here. The high mpx body vs low mpx body also does not help the comparison.
Ultimately, If the canon was half the price it is, it still better outperforms om-1 big time.
What could be a better take home message was that 100-500 shot at f7.1 compared to om-1 300 f4 - suddenly we are getting close in image quality. The benefit of olympus lies in 300 f4 getting you close while preserving f4 aperture . That's the 1 1/3rd or more stops of advantage compared to consumer fullframe setups often at f6.3 and that is the gap in noise performance breached (and based on the age of the ff sensor even benefits m43). Now combine that with stupid resolution of 300 f4 (see some measurements, it outresolves most of consumer ff wildlife lenses + it works at its best with 1.4x tc >without< stopping down = further enhancement of final resolution and depth of field) and speed of the whole kit and that's where the advantage is at.
recently i compared what looked like a decent 200-500 copy on legendary d810 36mpx sensor without antialiasing filter, to om-1 w 300f4 and the om-1 produces sharper images, w pretty much the same background rendering, while being half the size and a speed demon basically.
so that's the relevant comparison imho.
the more I watch and think about it the more I find this to be a promo for m43 switch :-) again, consider the regular audience - the reasoning for that big heavy expensive thing on your left will just sound ridiculous to most
Well, the Z180-600 is significantly sharper than the old F mount Nikon 200-500 from my experiences. But of course all systems have their advantages and disadvantages and each person needs to see what suits them best
You realize of course that although the OMS 300 f/4 is equivalent in FOV to the big white, the DOF is as if it were a f/8. That's why they were similar when you used the 100-500 at f/7.1. Further, the diff in detail on the feather does not show here due to the YT compression, in real life you have to seriously pixel peep and zoom in to see any detail difference. I have both the R5 and the OM-1. To me, as long as you use DxO PR the difference is minimal. I took both systems to Africa recently and in real world shots, I would defy you to pick which is which after processing.
Yes, I realise that. And I talked about this in detail in my other mft video, but some people wanted to see some „proof“
The only difference that matters is that one is a camera, the other a bazooka 😀
I still like my bazooka 😅
The problem with these tests, is that the approach is essentially flawed. What you, and pretty much all comparative reviewers do when dealing with M43rds, is they base their comparisons on equivalent fields of view rather than equal focal lengths. It's one way of doing it, yes; but it isn't the only way. Interestingly, this approach almost always puts M43rds at the disadvantage. Take the other approach and compare both with a 300mm f/4, or a 600mm f/4. Then you will see identical background blur but m43rds will have the advantage due to the "crop factor." In that case, you would need to crop the full frame image to get the equivalent field of view. This would be the fairer test if you are interested in actual sensor performance. Background blur would be identical and I would be willing to bet that even grain (noise) would look very similar. 300mm is 300mm. Cheers.
Yes, I see what you mean. But I still think mine is the most practical and useful test to compare the whole system. Still, many people say that the 300/4 on the olympus is equivalent to the 600/4 - which it really isn’t. I would have loved to compare the R5 & 600/4 against a 300/2 on the olympus. But such a lens does not exist. I wanted to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of both combinations.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I take your points. Perhaps, the solution would be to do both, and then see how results compare. Of course, the practical limitation would be lens availability. Of course, this can be overcome to some degree by limiting the review to focal lengths where there are directly comparable native lenses. IN any event, all academic but I do appreciate your video and the time you took to respond. Thanks again.
Background blur isn’t related to the sensor, its focal length, aperture, distance to subject and distance to background.
That‘s what I mentioned in the video
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography oh right, I only heard the bit at the start about it being related
If you know you never gonna by a Canon 600f4 it’s so much better to by a OM-1.
Any other lens on a R5 has no chance for birds
How do you come to this conclusion? I have used several other amazing lenses on the R5 for birds
I’m sorry but mft just doesn’t cut it.
I also prefer full frame 😊
I think full frame and m43 is an unfair comparison. Apsc would have been a better comparison with the current lens selection
I did this as well in the past
But it's a valid comparison of use cases. There are people who are deciding between FF and m43 - this video allows them to judge the difference in IQ, and whether the slightly lower IQ of m43 can be justified/offset by much lower weight and price.
Most new users don’t realise you get about the same noise performance on full frame with two stops higher ISO than m43. I’d like to see comparisons shooting m43 at ISO 200 vs full frame at ISO 800 for example, or iso 1000 on m43 compared to iso 4000 on full frame. I think that would be an eye opener for many.
Today Canon sucks; $4-6K bodies don't have pre capture.... only on the horribly rolling shutter R7. smh.
What about the R6 II and R8?
I like your video, and it got some point. However... I must stress though, focal length is focal length. Putting a lens on a mft sensor makes an optical crop in practice. it is as you would put an (in this case) 300mm lens on a camera with a 80 mp sensor and crop away (here it comes) four thirds of the sensor! giving you 20 mp and a percieved fov of 600mm lens left. The real comparison would be to match, say, the 150-400mm pro + 1.2 tc (eq 500mm f5.6) against the nikon 500mm pf f5.6.
I havbe done this myself with my OM-1 and Nikon Z7 II. And I can say, at the same focal lenght, the OM-1 blows the nikon out of the water. Since it then equals a 500mm lens cropped down from a 80 mp sensor.
So what I would like you to do is, redo this test, but with a 300mm lens on the canon.
Your logic behind pixel density is right. However I don't understand why you should be comparing lens-camera combinations that produces completely different equivalent focal lengths? Other produces 1000mm frame and other 500mm frame, what's the point? These lenses will be used in different purposes. Closest FF alternative to Oly 150-400mm is Canon 200-800mm or 150-600mm lenses.
@@heikkivalkonen1075 yes, that is true. But by comparing the same focal length I think it gets more honest. If that make sense. However, another point is that if you can fill the frame with a ff camera, the image Will be better. But if you cant do that, the mft image would be better than a cropped ff image. The noise is also similar when you crop to get eq focal length. To say that one is better than the other is hard. It depends on the circumstance i quess.
@b4011 Well I kind of understand your point, but I don't really fully agree, because these lenses would've different use scenarios. And kind of ironic because this FF set (Nikon Z7II + 500mm PF) is lighter, smaller and cheaper than OM1+150-400mm. If you would have a FF camera with 80mp sensor this comparison would be honest, I think, and the only thing you would be comparing then is optical quality of the lenes. I have never really seen any difference between MFT and FF cameras when comparing images at equivalent apertures, focal lengths and similar resolution. I think author of this video made such a test when comparing RF100-500 (1.2x crop to 600mm f8.5) to 300f4 (equivalence 600mm f8) lens, unfortunately he did not show sharpness or noise difference, but I bet that there was practically none (more resolution on FF so it might have slightly better detail). To be honest, I think everything is a compromise when it comes to photography gear. And you are perfectly right that its very hard to determine which is better, as you said it depends on the circumstances.
Well, but then you have a different crop! Why would I use a 300mm on a fullframe just to crop afterwards to 600mm? That doesn’t make sense to me
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Well, I don't think you do actually. that's my point. putting a 300mm lens on a FF and cropping it down to 600mm gives you an apples to apples comparison. If I put it this way. comparing a mtf camera with a 300mm lens vs FF 600mm lens is like comparing, say, a nikon Z6 ii with a 600mm vs Z7 II with a 300mm lens. which would you think produces the best image?
I don't mean to sound offensive. I just feel that people tend to think that mtf cameras are bad for the wrong reasons.
There is no difference in size in reality! Come on! The difference in size appears because you are using a faster lens on the Full Frame Camera. Just put a 600mm F/8 lens on the Full Frame Camera and things will get the same. You are not using an F/4 lens on the Micro Four Thirds Camera! Come on! It is, in fact, an F/8 lens! To have a real F/4 lens on a Micro 4/3 camera, you need an aperture of F/2. But a real F/4 lens for Micro 4/3 would be huge! Virtually the same size as of your Full Frame F/4 lens! You can have the same small size using any full frame camera! Just buy a lens with a F/8 aperture!
But I mentioned that in the video. A 300/2 does not exist for MFT
You're incorrect and any reputable, professional or industry source will confirm the fact - aperture is a feature of the lens - the amount if light gathered - does not change with sensor size. F/4 is F/4, whether you shoot it on a Medium Format camera or MFT. DoF changes, but that is a fact of perspective, not sensor size.
@@luzr6613 I am not wrong. You better learn how to calculate it. You don't know, right? It doesn't look good to the micro sensors when we say the truth, right? Micro 4/3 is a nice system. We can use it and take good pictures. There is no problem with that. But we don´t need to lie to people. If you are saying that a tiny sensor receives the same amount of light of a big sensor using the same lens... you definitely is living in another universe! I would love to live in a universe where you reduce the size of things and gathers even more light! It would be great! But, unfortunately, not in our Universe! I would love to use my smartphone and have this F/4 you are talking about. But it won't happen! Impossible! So, without all the calculations, which are complicate, let's make it easier to understand: bigger means more light, which means lower ISO, which means less noise. It's not even a new thing to talk about!