So THAT'S Why People Shoot Full Frame
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
- People often choose micro four thirds or aps-c crop sensors to save weight and money. They say image quality is comparable. Can is really match full frame? Especially for video? Let's do a little wildlife video comparison of the full frame Sony a7s III with 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 vs the m4/3 Olympus EM1 III withi 75-300mm f5.6-6.7. Is it a fair comparison? Not really, but it's what I have access to. Who has the better 120 fps slow mo? I was honestly shocked.
If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, the president of micro four loser thirds will host a crying party for those who went the cheaper, lighter but devastatingly worse image quality way of life.
Sony A7S III bhpho.to/3yeUW0q
Sony 200-600mm amzn.to/39NSZA9 or USED amzn.to/39L52y3 or bhpho.to/37nkzTI
Olympus OM-1 amzn.to/3gW4dCT or bhpho.to/3H2adVf
Olympus EM1 III amzn.to/3rxEXJn or bhpho.to/3dp7UPL
Olympus 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 amzn.to/3oILuix or bhpho.to/3u2pfr5
Olympus 100-400mm amzn.to/3hTGsfd or USED amzn.to/3vZNszh or bhpho.to/3FZ69Vd
Olympus 300mm f4 pro amzn.to/3MBLQBN or USED amzn.to/3KCnrKB or bhpho.to/3CtDw2e or USED bhpho.to/3CvyKBc
Instagram / vegetablepolice
All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com...
Patreon for Monthly Q&A Videos / vegetablepolice
T-shirts and merch! vegetablepolic...
My Monkey Strength ebook payhip.com/b/VyEG
My Music from videos! Entire Discography 15% off vegetablepolic...
Random ass donations to paypal.me/vegetablepolice Thank you!
Q-Link Products changed my life! share.shopqlin...
My Health Channel Vegetable Police / canadianwargod
My Music Channel Stern Beats / @sternbeatsmusic
If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, the president of micro four loser thirds will host a crying party for those who went the cheaper, lighter but devastatingly worse image quality way of life.
Sony A7S III bhpho.to/3yeUW0q
Sony 200-600mm amzn.to/39NSZA9 or USED amzn.to/39L52y3 or bhpho.to/37nkzTI
Olympus OM-1 amzn.to/3gW4dCT or bhpho.to/3H2adVf
Olympus EM1 III amzn.to/3rxEXJn or bhpho.to/3dp7UPL
Olympus 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 amzn.to/3oILuix or bhpho.to/3u2pfr5
Olympus 100-400mm amzn.to/3hTGsfd or USED amzn.to/3vZNszh or bhpho.to/3FZ69Vd
Olympus 300mm f4 pro amzn.to/3MBLQBN or USED amzn.to/3KCnrKB or bhpho.to/3CtDw2e or USED bhpho.to/3CvyKBc
Instagram instagram.com/vegetablepolice/
All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com/shop/vegetablepolice
New Leica 9mm f1.7 is now the best lens ever
This is one of the reasons why I switched from Fujifilm to the Nikon Z7 three years ago. Full frame image quality is just better. Especially dynamic range and the ability to separate from the background as the same equivalent focal lengths. M4/3 and APS-C are ok, but you get what you pay for.
Have u used the om1 for video tho
FF is better ... until you realize that once more you have left the gear at home or in the hotel room because you couldn't bear the thought if carrying that equipment around on your casual walk. It dawns on you that having some footage is vastly superior to having no footage.
Then take sony a6000 and Tamron 70-300
Exactly. I'd rather take my GH5M2 and Panasonic 100-400 out and get 2000mm equivalent close up videos of ants from 1.3 meters away: ua-cam.com/video/bphT_Hku6Zs/v-deo.html - Can't do that on full frame, minimum focusing distance limits to subjects at twice the distance at least. MFT isn't better than FF in some situations, but it's more enjoyable to travel with. In short, it's more fun, in my opinion :)
no, either you wanted to get a shot, or you wanted to get a snap shot. You want a snap shot, you have your phone.
If you think that's bad, just think about us medium format film shooters ;) it's a matter of habit and determination. No excuses.
Yep, my Z50 with the 50-250DXVR sees more action than my Z7II. ;)
I didn't know anything about digital video until I started watching this guy.
"It weighs like less than a foot" is going to be my new measurement for weighing anything
I'm gonna adopt that as well (metric German BTW).
I’m waiting 2 weeks. Then Olympus and M4/3 will be praised again..
I have full frame and apsc Sony’s. Which are my daily drivers. I have the Olympus om1 m2 at home but left my Sony’s on site. Took the Olympus out for the first time in a long time and it was awesome. I loved it. Especially for photos.
GH6 is the only option to compare or even dethrone the Sony. Make it happen.
Yes but then there is the lens difference which is huge.
oh yeah. go out with GH6 into moonlight and do some wildlife nightshots with big cats or wolves. good luck.
No, it's the ZCAM E2M4. Prores 422 hq with internal noise reduction. You van shoot in full moonlight at ISO 51200 with great quality. Amazing camera!
ua-cam.com/video/sSUUouBRjMk/v-deo.html - 8 bit, 4:2:0 glory. Read description. So that's why they learn how to tone map their MFT footage, it even beats 10 bit full frame scrubs. 2000mm equiv handheld.
I'm so glad I came across this video.
Six years ago, I had to sell my Nikon D40 to afford a move. Recently, I’ve been feeling nostalgic for those moments spent with my camera-sitting in a bush, waiting for the perfect shot, or setting up my tripod on the edge of a mountain.
Lately, I’ve noticed a slew of UA-camrs claiming that Micro Four Thirds gear is better than full-frame. After some research, I decided to step into the full-frame world with a used Lumix S5 and kit lens for under $950. I’m thrilled to explore the creative freedom it offers and I'm glad to see a comparison like this.
6:34 Olympus has CHOWN to blow out the highlights.
Love you, mate!
Wow, thanks man, no idea that a video-centric camera that cost $3500, paired with a $2000 lens can produce better video results than a $1500 dollar stills camera paired with a $500 lens... Great content, your troll game is strong.. lol
Best comment here. He’s been making these videos for years and still has no clue how to use a camera.
Or what to compare with what
He is an obnoxious moron who uses photography jargon to prove his mental inadequacy
I use the GH5/GH6 for paid work and also like to shoot a bit of wildlife stuff just while I am out with the family on trips. I find they are really good, just so long as you can learn to work within the limitations of the camera/s. There is no way I could carry around a full frame camera with a massive lens for hobbyist stuff, so for me the GH cameras are great because they are rock solid and the lenses are pretty small and affordable. I don't miss the days of carrying a full frame camera around on a gimbal all day for work, my back much prefers mft. You can't deny there is some really nice detail with the Sony there though 🙂
You know the difference because you are a Professional. Many UA-camrs have no idea!! Very funny to see beginners with huge lenses for hiking and believing that the equipment will help to make better pictures!!
so you like selling lack of dynamic range crap photos to your customers. 👍
@@raedchen1 Back under your bridge son, I'm not interested.
@@raedchen1 who told you that? Nonsense! Incredible how the people believe and repeat stupid things like that! Those lab tests shows the limits, but we almost never work with those limits. Look the videos from Ryan Harris with the GH5.
Lol people get so aggressive with their gear shaming. Even if you use full frame you can still get better dynamic range with medium format. At the end of the day it’s whatever the client likes to see, and professionals will use the right gear for the right job. That said larger formats are definitely way more forgiving in post! Smaller formats are more technical to compose and expose for.
HD vs 4K, slow vs fast lens...It's not a fair comparison. You got to make it fair, try an OM-1 or GH6 (specially for video) with a faster lens (then you'll have better separation, because as it is, you are comparing f13.5 with and f6.3 for DoF, at the longest end) @4k60p for example on both, and then we can discuss. If we want a good comparison, we need to be fair from the start.
I own both Sony FF and Oly, and i hate Sony's ergonomics. That's also important, at least for me, specially when you have a heavier setup you definitely want good ergo/handling.
My God! You're becoming Tony Northrup!
Correct. Next he will be hunting for f/0.7 full frame glass. Lol.
It's definitely fun to dunk on micro four loser thirds but is anyone surprised a lens that's half as fast and 1/4 the price of the Sony doesn't measure up (let alone the size and weight). Next we can compare $1,200 cameras to $3,600 cameras.
Indeed, a 2000$ lens vs a 500$ lens, but I bet the real problem is the Olympus video capabilities at 120fps, those are the same weird colous/oversharpened looks I get with mine at those settings, at 60 it looks great though.
Are you guys getting this is irony?
The image would definitely improve but the biggest issue that are listed in the video (besides depth of field) are problems that are originating from the sensor's characteristics and limitations not the lens (which to some extend the depth of field thing is also part of the sensor issue, the lens is just showcasing it).
The only thing i could criticise the whole video is that, most olympus users can agree that olympus is not about the quality compared to other camera systems, but the quality you get compared to the size and flexibility that system offers.
But really do you argue that the same problems wouldn't occure at a well matched comparison of a micro 4/3 system to a full frame system? I'd say the same exact issues would occure with micro 4/3 performing relatively better.
FF looked crap most of the time in the video.
@@JM_2019 Okay, that's just a bad take.
"It weighs less than a foot?"
The Squirrel whisperer is now the Bird whisperer
And turtle whisperer.
In this cases, the quality comes mainly from the lens. Next important things are the video technology like oversampling, 8 bit or 10 bit codecs, video resolution (HD, 4k or more). The Oly isn't the best video choice and the lens is mediocre. A GH6 with a good lens would perform much better.
yeah i'd imagine gh6 is more comparable to the a7siii and 100-400 to look better than a 75-300 when put side by side to the sony 200-600
One of THEE best videos on youtube, period. I spat out my coffee...and I was drinking tea. Points perfectly made. You may well have just broken irony on the internet. Now I am going to irony my shirt for work in the morning. I subbed. Many thanks.
Really like ur videos. U have humor, alternative content like bird stuff, also really professional cams, specs and knowledge. Every time an honor to watch!
Please do the experiment with the gh6 and Panasonic 100-400 vs the Sony, the results would be very interesting.
Would also like to see that.
Looking for it on other channels now too ha
at f8
Hahahaha your vid’s literally crack me up man. I love it. Keep it up. Love the Fuji info.
TL:DW: You get what you pay for and carry.
Olympus for Stills, Panasonic for Video!
Panasonic does great for stills too.
I'm 72 years old.
Do you think they will have made the perfect camera before they take me away?
Or solved the 4/3rds, APS-C, v FF controversy
You want to much old man. Even I will not live to see the perfect camera. I am 40 years old. We can always dream.
I'm 72 as well and shoot video with MFT and full frame, both have their place in my opinion. The unrealistic comparison in the above is heavily weighted to full frame. D
The one of the left is singing songs of death and destruction. Lol. Subscribed.
I always enjoy you videos and often learn but I'm rolling my eyes on this one.
I've used Micro Four Third cameras (last ones was Oly E-M1 Mark III and Panasonic G9) for over 10 years but I switch to Sony a7R II (and had Sony a7C) for the last 8 months. The most disappointing thing about Micro Four Thirds, for wildlife, was the ISO performance above 1.600, the shadow recovery and the fact that black subjects are rendered as a smear with no details left in them no matter how you expose. With Sony I get beautiful feather details and accurate black shades ... and I have a lot of of dark coloured birds here.
Easily fixed with Video Enhance AI. Sure, it's nice to get better results in camera, but my Panasonic 100-400 can do something extra for wildlife: focus at 4 feet away, rendering close ups of tiny critters, impossible with full frame wildlife lenses. No free lunch in the universe. I use MFT despite some limitations and give it full frame "like" quality with Video Enhance AI noise reduction and upscaling software for great results.
Skill will always matter more. Kasey is trying to talk himself into full frame after the HX-2 fan fiasco. Even MFT is good in the right hands. Ex: Bunnies in 8 bit video, magical color, handheld at 2000mm ua-cam.com/video/LY11h1Y4e5Y/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/dM7ej4Nphgo/v-deo.html - Try getting shots like that with any 100-400 telephoto zoom on full frame, handheld too ... Shots taken at 2000mm equivalent from like 6-8 feet away. That solid minimum focusing distance of Micro Four Thirds is something few talk about.
And it's not that your points aren't valid. They are. MFT does have disadvantages. But with Video Enhance AI and some extra creativity I've made it work wonders for me :)
@@BackusCreativeImaging It's not that I disagree with you. I don't shoot video at all (yus I am that kind of a pleb :P ) and I use Topaz DeNoise AI for both formats and I used the OIympus 100-400mm f 5-6.3 and Panasonic Leica 50-200mm f 2.8-4. I found that metering for a dark subject slows down the shutter speed a lot and was impacting my ability to get sharp motion and upping the ISO and trying to recover in post would degrade the quality of the details significantly, I would always have to trade one problem for another but never able to avoid both except bright daylight with direct sunlight, not the most flattering look for an image, rarely a weather occurrence in South West UK and limited to the summer months of an entire year. I gave up on Micro Four Thirds with a very heavy heart because I love that system since my Pansonic G1 back in 2009.
As someone who invested a lot (for an amateur) in Olympus gear between 2015 and 2020 for whom an OM-D is still his high-end camera, I've got say: your video gave me quite a few chuckles. You did get one thing wrong though: I shoot with an iPhone these days, not a pocket Lumix. 😉
Great vid as usual. Only convinced me more that crop sensor is the best compromise for most people.
Nobody: I wonder what HD from a $400 telezoom lens looks like compared to 4K from a Saturn V rocket lens.
CC: Hold my Fuj
I actually just bought that Olympus lens to help replace a P&S megazoom. I wanted to use it to film my kids' marching band. Kid quits marching band. I coulda got a faster prime.
I think all of the footage you're capturing is pretty good, admittedly the m4/3rds footage does look to be a bit sharp and contrasty, and some of the highlights in some shots do look blown out, I think you might be able to push your exposure a little to protect highlights and you might have to process it a little to get the "cinema" beauty you are aiming for. As a "Photographer" I appreciate the video you're capturing, it is nice to get those exceptional images of increadible detail that capture the beauty of nature, but even beautiful stills fail to capture the behaviour and character you witness watching nature. I covet the video capabilities of the A7s3 even the Fuji, Panasonic and the Olympus cameras have much better frame rates and stabilization than the 5DIV and 7DII that I shoot wild life and landscapes with. The 5DIV only shoots 120fps @ 720p and even then without auto focus. I can honestly appreciate your field tested critique of these tools.
Demon bird was the cinema
Try to find a metabones adapter to adapt the full frame lens on the micro four thirds camera. I once mounted a Nikon 600mm f4 on a gh5 with the metabones adapter 0.64 and i got an equivalent of 984mm f2.8 (light gathering capability since the adapter focuses the light since it has glass in it). You dont get the separation of a full frame but you dont get the m43 look either. You are in the middle. You get crop camera separation so it takes you one step futher to full frame.
Your 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 would become 320ish - 984 with and f gatheirng capability of f4- f5.6ish and the separation of a crop sensor.
There is also the same adapter without te glass in it that would give you the result of m43 separation, but an equivalent mm of 400-1200 but since it lacks the glass element it would turn your lens into f8-f11ish.
Metabones are expensive for no reason so i would reccomend getting the viltrox ones. I am sure you are goig to have a lot of fun.
Autofocus works with both of them
Also you dont lose quality in your image in both scenarios
It was really fun playing with the capabilities.
I think your criticisms are pertinent. However, you're comparing a bad codec on the Olympus to a decent one. It's important to remember that was Olympus' 1st attempt at 120fps. Maybe you should try the GH6 with 4k 120fps and a smaller 600mm equiv.? AF doesn't matter for those shots. That would be a closer fight IMO.
Codecs make all the difference, forget more pixels, give me better or no compression.
Oh! Man: You could not compare a HD vs 4k video, it is not fair.
Omg. Very fair comparisons. Kit lens vs pro lens, 4K vs 720p, best codec vs worst codec. U sure that's definitely a MFT problem?
Bro you should have taken 100(150)-400 lens to compare. And probably a OM1, not EM1-m3 cause Sony camera is way more expensive. You should have compared it to Sony A7m1 based on price. Spoiler - A7m1 is garbage compared to Em1m3. You comparison is as valid as comparing a Mercedes to Toyota - they both have an engine and 4 wheels, but one is definitely faster!
MFT is wonderful for long shots, long walks, wild life, street photography, studio photography with decent lights. Not fit for night or shots with 100 stops of dynamic range. Great handheld videos, much smaller files, awesome ergonomic. MFT is a ln amazing fit for general consumer and specific professionals. FF is niche - for amazing dynamic range, stationary work, bokeh, low-light. I have em1m2 and it's an amazing all-around camera and ~800$ pro lenses with outstanding sharpness. I literally walk around in my dtd with Lumix gx800 and 17mm 1.8 which fits in my jacket and make amazing photos without a bag with me.
The next video in my algorithm is a 13 year old, pimple-face kid comparing a couple of NASCAR cars after being given the keys by the Make a Wish Foundation. The only cars he’s driven up to now are Mario Karts.
Pure and beautiful out of focus chaos. The sheer panic when you manually pulled focus on that Duck was the most hilarious and honest soundbite I've ever heard on UA-cam. There's a sense of terror that comes over me every time I make the AF to MF switch. I applaud your honesty my friend. Wish more UA-camr's were like you.
I am wondering what the point of this comparison is. This is a patently unfair comparison of the $350 Olympus zoom to the $2,000 Sony and, by your own admission, $2,000 of Olympus gear vs. $5,500 of Sony gear. Considering this disparity, the Olympus footage holds its own in many areas. I own the Olympus 75 to 300 under review and find it to be a phenomenal value, especially when you consider the 600mm equivalence. It is not perfect but at this price and size, I do not expect it to be. It suits my purposes well. (Admittedly, I am primarily a stills photographer and do not shoot much video.) If you made the same comparison with the new OM-1 or Panasonic GH-6 with an Olympus or Panny pro level zoom, the gap between Micro 4/3 and full frame would be considerably narrowed. This is a very shaky foundation upon which to build an indictment of the Micro 4/3 format. This being said, I enjoy your videos as much as I sometimes disagree with your opinions.
The image quality is still 1080p 120p on the OM-1 it would barely change. And I've compared the 300mm f4 to this lens and it was just slightly sharper, hardly noticeable.
@@cameraconspiracies But.. what about the gh6? Hmmmmmmmm...
@@cameraconspiracies if 4K120 is your thing, then compare it with the GH6 with a similarly priced lens. Otherwise, this comparison is pretty pointless. All it tells us is that a $3000 dollar lens performs better on a system that shoots 4K120, than a cheap tele lens on a body aimed for stills, with a crappy implemented 120p. You realize you're comparing video performance with a video dedicated camera, using a lens magnitudes more expensive, versus a stills focused camera with a cheapo lens right? LOL
@@cameraconspiracies it's like if someone made a video comparing the GH6's 4K120 with the 150-400 vs a 5DMK1 with a cheapo, EF 75-300mm LOL. And then they claim FF image quality sucks. "so that's why people use M43 - it's not even close" LOOOOOOOOOOOOL
@@HokKan Just comparing what I have, I obviously don't have the GH6.
Thanks, finally an honest and clear review! This helps !
Sony is pretty… pretty shaky. I’d rather watch the stable footage.
I had APS-C for over a decade, thinking it was good enough. Then I went full frame and I look back in disgust at my old stuff now. Yes my Tamron 150-600 and Canon 6D makes my arms hurt, but it's giving me files I actually want to keep and show off rather than be embarrassed by.
6D for real? A Sony A6100 Apsc would blow it to smithereens. The Xt-4 blows the Eos R in video and the 6D is like the EOS RP, which is just 🤦♂️ in video.
@@DeepteshLovesTECH yeah, and everyone has infinite amount of money
Well I had a Canon compact zoom camera with 3 MP (yes three) and I'm proud of some of the photos I took with it. Gear isn't everything.
Your skills have probably stepped up too. :)
@@DeepteshLovesTECH I didn't get it for video. That would have been a huge mistake since the camera I had before it had better video.
I am still waiting to see what this new Fujifilm X-H2s will look like. And if they announce that new XF 150-600mm lens this year it might be a contender.
I my opinion the "cheap look" has multiple reasons and not only the lens matters.
The lens + sensor size cause a big depth of field but the high contrast and high sharpnes is in my point of view mostly caused by the video compression. AS far AS I know the Olympus EM1 III records at 120fps only with up tp 50Mbps. Lower framerates like 30, 25 and 24fps and 1080p are recorded with up to 202Mbps. By compareing footage from the Olzmpus with different bitrates you should also see differences in the video quality. Especially when there is a lot of detail in the frame.
The Sony A7sIII records 1080p and 120fps with 100Mbps. 4k and 120fps with 280Mbps
And the Olympus records C4k 24p at 237Mbps
a lens won't give you the cheap look. It's all about data. A 1080p image can look better than a 4K image bc all of that is just resolution. What really matters is how much data are they putting into that single image over 24f a second, 50f a second, or 120f a second. A 1080p image with 220mbps will look better than a 4k image with 50mbps. Plus they added way too much digital sharpness to the image
Camera Canada lend this man a GH6
If you shoot a Nikon Z9, its sensor and animal eye AF in video will so slay the A7S III, your head will spin. Of course if you think the Sony kit is bulky, wait till you try a Z9 with a 200-600mm, which isn't out yet. Maybe the Z6 II? At least it has animal detection AF in video.
Z6 II has animal detect focus in video? In 120p?
@@cameraconspiracies I don't really know Nikons but I know they added "animal detect AF" in a firmware update in 2020. I can find no information about video AF so far. From the reviews I see, the animal detection is not that great even in photography. Plus the Z6 II doesn't shoot N Log internally and it's only 8 bit, so it's likely not for you anyway. Get hold of a Z9.
@@cameraconspiracies Only up to 4k60. 120fps is HD and single point AF only.
Edit: And Z6II animal AF doesn’t work on birds.
When I saw the videos at 1:38 I thought maybe they were mis-labeled. To me the Olympus one looks sharper and clearer, Sony looks kinda muddy. Upon reflection (and looking at them again right now) I've decided I don't like either one. Oly is too contrasty, Sony not contrasty enough. I hardly shoot any video so I don't know what can be easily adjusted in post, maybe neither one can be fixed or maybe both can..or maybe just one or the other. You tell me.
It's the turtles at 10:50 (Sony) and 11:05 (Olympus) that really make the case for the Sony. Oly is just waaaay too contrasty. But..what happens if you adjust the contrast in the "Movie Options" settings? Maybe it'll still look bad but in a different way. Or maybe it'll look fine. But it definitely seems worth trying. I mean, it only takes a minute, right?
Either way it seems odd to bill this as "full frame vs micro four-thirds". I'm not convinced the difference in tone and contrast tells us much about the inherent qualities of the sensor sizes, as opposed to the specific choices about video profiles and such.
The one thing that _is_ related to sensor size is the bokeh. If you're shooting at f/4 with the Sony, you'd need to shoot at f/2 with the Olympus to have the same depth of field. Well, that lens you're using doesn't come anywhere near that. In fact, is there such thing as an f/2 long zoom for m43? I don't think there is. As it is, you're shooting at, I dunno, f/5.6 or something with the Olympus, maybe you say so in the video and I didn't notice...as far as depth of field that's like shooting f/11 with the Sony...lots of depth of field, no surprise that you don't get that nice separation between subject and background. Hmm, let's see, there is a Panasonic 50-200 f/2.8-4, that seems pretty promising for getting something closer to what you're hoping for. (As far as depth of field it's still only equivalent to f/5.6-8 on full frame, though. Still, at least it would be a lot better).
On the whole I'm afraid I've gotta agree with some of the other commenters on here: this isn't just an apples-to-oranges comparison, it's wormy, old apples that have been sitting in a barrel in the basement for half a year-to-fresh oranges right off the tree. (You're comparing a system with a cheap, slow lens and perhaps poorly chosen video settings, compared to a expensive, fast lens with video settings that are more to your likely). Maybe m43 would also perform badly if you used a faster lens with its narrower depth of field, and if you took twenty seconds to adjust the contrast...I really don't know...but it seems kinda cheesy not to try, and then to claim you're comparing something inherent about differences in sensor size.
All of that said, though, it's kinda comical how the Olympus fan-boys are such haters about this. Dudes, chill out. It's no skin off your back if someone does a comparison you think is unfair or that you think is clickbait! Unless you work for Olympus (or whatever the new company is called) WTF do you care? Open a brewski and relax on the couch until you feel better.
This vlog went straight over my head after seeing Bob Ross sat there…
I've used m4/3, crop and full frame, and full frame is still the best quality.
I have a friend who swears by FF, he drives his Mac truck to film his projects, I walk with my small rucksack full of MFT, although he does give me a ride sometimes...then I help him to carry each lens out.
I mean I'm crying because it's true. Thank you for the light.
This channel is so underrated.
I don't think anyone buys an Olympus for video. Could you please do a comparison of photographs?
I've been using Panasonic m43 since 2017. Started with G7, then g85 then g9. Last year I invested in two S5s and omg what a difference. I feel dumb for not having switched to full frame long time ago
thanks for providing smiles in this sh1*tty day buddy
"This thing weighs less than a foot". Ah, the best of Toronto right there, keep it classy fellow denizen. :)
Another hilarious video disguising a masterful comparison of just how good Sony equipment is. Thanks!
OK, in a somewhat sweeping statement I'll say if you changed you profile [on the oly] to Flat (movie mode > menu > camera menu > specification settings > picture mode = ON; then pick the first of the two available ), your kingfisher and the crow-thing footage would look less cheap, quite surprisingly so, I'd say. It really shines in contrasty conditions.
4k is sharper than HD? Well yes, yes it is.
Pointless Video.
Fuji looked great in HD, this wasn't about sharpness. The Olympus was OVER sharpened.
resolution isn't sharpness, simon. it's just more or less pixels. if you're looking through a soft lens, it'll be more soft pixels.
I mean, come on. That Sony lens is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, it's great. But it's an absolute hell to be mobile with it on foot. Olympus for recording videos was and still is a joke, there's Panasonic for that. Go and compare it with GH6 and Pana 100-400 F4.0-F6.3. And let's not forget that if you don't need such a big reach, there's still Pana 50-200 F2.8-F4.0. This setup will allow you to actually move around for hours in search of birds, and not feel like you are wearing a baggage like in the middle of the warzone lol.
I thought the Olympus looked better. I guess I like the over sharpened look.
Well, we are all different, but if you ask me about the Olympus footage:
🤢🤮
I am glad you have recorded this for posterity. One day, you will get old. When you are 52, carrying a 12Kg camera bag, every day, will destroy your knees, and your back. You will slip on the wet grass. Land on your back, on your camera bag, on your 50mm f1.4, and ram the lens cell into the full frame body, and shatter all the plastic gears. You will slither to your feet and declare you have had enough. You will then work safely away with M4/3rds for 8 years. It ain't great, but your back is better, and your knees are no longer going "over centre" in agony. Then one day you will try another full frame camera and lens. You have it a week. You take it out for a walk at the weekend, to learn it. And only 4 days after getting it, you will slip in the mud, and land on your side, just missing the camera bag. You are filthy, and wet, and covered in mud. Your ribs are bruised. You roll over, on all fours in the mud and in rage, pull yourself to your feet. "I AM SO DONE WITH ALL THIS! EIGHT YEARS AGO I WAS SO DONE WITH THIS!!" This is your future. You will get old. Your knees will go. Your back will be wrecked. One day you will reach this choice, and this place. What will you do? Take selfies on your watch? Not carry a camera. Stop taking any pictures? Become silent? Nothing more to say? Then you can watch this video . . . and we can have a chuckle . . .
It's the shadow detail where the losers really lose it, even through the UA-cam gymnastics.
I'm so happy everytime I see one of your notification: I haven't seen the video yet but I know I'm gonna like it :)
So are we shitting on Olympus or MFT as a whole? Cheap body plus cheap lens vs very expensive body plus very expensive lens. Haha
I totally agree with the Dynamic range though but GH6 would definitely be better
"it weighs like less than a foot" DED 1:55
The difference in the image quality has, in this case, nothing to do with the sensor size! It has to do with the Olympus em1iii video capabilities in slow 120fps you are using and with the cheap lens you are using. Look at the videos from Daniel J Cox and Mike Lane, for example, and you will see different results than yours!
I've seen their stuff, it's not up to the level of what full frame can do. And their setups cost more with that 150-400mm.
@@cameraconspiracies They produced amazing photos and videos also with the old Cameras and with much more limited or older lenses. Both are great Wildlife Photographers, and compared results in high level with the Sony A1. Undoubtedly the Sonys are excellent and easier for those who are starting in Wildlife, and of course if your goal is just to shoot in slowmotion the Sonys are excellent for that. Your mistake is to evaluate the performance of an entire system, being a beginner, and comparing the oldest wildlife lens in the system on a Camera that is not designed for slow motion video, with a Camera and lens that are designed for slow motion video. I tested the A1 with the 200-600 and the results were excellent! And I've had Nikon for decades. Both options are amazing, but just use an OM1 properly with the Leica 200f2.8 or 100-400, or 300f4, to understand how good this system is. Naturally this Camera is not capable of 120fps 4K, but I'm not interested in Slowmotion in Wildlife for singing birds. I’m interested in nature and wildlife video and sound. And in photography the IQ difference is negligible in most situations. You once coined a nickname for the Aperture value, and now you yourself are becoming synonymous for a feature you exaggerate and overvalue in use: slow motion is becoming Kaseh! :)
@@TITAOSTEIN but trashing m4/3 and cheering for free Sony gear they send you gets those clicks! Don’t forget to like and subscribe!
Thank you for demonstrating that gear does matter. I know there's a lot of pros out there using Sony for wildlife but in my opinion, I think Canon and Nikon have better looking files. If the Nikon 200-600 is like all the other z lenses that have come out, it's going to be a beast for wildlife (no pun intended). Every new z lens has been better than their old f predecessors. I have the money saved up for that lens right now.
YES. I've tried the A7R2, A7R3, and A7M4. Each for over a month each with various lenses. I have a background in print lab production and proofing. The older bodies had odd greens and yellows. The A1/A7M4 have a brownish tint to them. All shooting Neutral/Flat profiles with a few lenses. You'll notice this in sample galleries too. However, Sony's JPG's are the real issue. Blues often turn purple and they are nowhere near matching in Lightroom or in other browsers. I have a 91% hit rate with my Z7II shooting sports, but in that 9% last weekend was the money shot. Nikon needs to step up their game. If Nikon offered a smaller updated f-mount full-frame D500 I'd buy t in a heartbeat.
@@skyrunr hang in there. The next gen bodies will be astounding. They're getting close on the algorithms for the firmware. The z6ii and z7ii have physical limitations because of the read and write speed of the sensors. All mirrorless cameras have this issue. DSLR bodies don't use the sensor for focus tracking the way mirrorless do. This is why modifier are a bit slower. If Nikon starts putting stacked sensors in their future bodies it will solve a lot of their problems. I would pay extra to get better focusing/tracking with no screen black out in burst mode. I think the d500 will be announced by the end of the year. Canon just came out with 2 apsc models with a high frame rate. Nikon has to answer.
@@carlmcneill1139 They better. They almost lost me to the R7. However, AF speed isn't the issue. Acquiring focus is plenty fast, it is staying focused that is the issue. I think they forget that they're fighting smartphones. I also think the pre-recording should be in all cameras to deal with the ML shutter lag. ;) Make it so.
That ain't no woodpecker, that's an antediluvian fruit berry.
I bought a Gx9 yesterday. M4/3 lives!!!
But I just shoot photos, so what do I know.
Thanks for keeping the dream alive :)
GX9 is a great camera, even in 2022. Enjoy.
@@joeltunnah
Thanks. I am so far as I'm figuring it out. And your videos were among the ones I watched that made me feel OK about buying old tech to do some street photography, which I haven't done in ages.
@@shardanette1 oh I’m glad I could help! ✌🏻😁
The conga turtles comparison, sadness, burnt retinas, more sadness.
I guess you hit the nail on your comment for having the option, or choice. Carry heavier gear after spending more, but it delivers. Or spend much less and carry less, but not get the same results. Of course they don't perform the same. The whole world would jump on MFT if they would. There isn't a single photographer, sorry, videographer that doesn't want to save on weight and money. But not if you loose this much on quality.
If you want a car that does 300 MPG, it's not going to be as fast as a Ferrari. It's going to be like your moms Minivan.
But that brings me to another point. You choose the minivan with that 70-300mm. It's a friggin' kitlens. And you've compared it to a full frame G master ? Compare it to the Pro 300mm f/4 or the Pro 40-150mm f/2.8 with the Teleconverter. I'm sure the results will be a lot less shocking. The full frame will still be better. It's supposed to be, for it to have a place on our tiny planet. But it makes that choice you talked about have more meaning. Now it seems there is no choice at all, which is not true. There are far better choices then the Olympus 70-300.
Go with a cheaper lens on the Sony for a more honest compare. But they have nothing (native) with 600mm eq. reach. Going down in reach, you could go with the 70-300mm 4.5-5/6 on the Sony and put that against the 40-150mm f/2.8-fixed. Same pricerange, even same-ish eq. toneh. I think the difference will almost be gone. The price and weight difference will also be much less, to put that choice back in perspective.
Really enjoying your channel. Keep it comming, you've got something magic going on.
I like the part where he says woodpeckers 🤩
What annoys me is my blackmagic pocket 4k is perfectly comparable with my a7siii. In some circumstances it is better. So it is definitely possible to have this quality in m43.
Why cant we a pocket 4k with mirrorless features.
What I found is that the Olympus E-M1 Mark III digitally sharpens the image if you use the flat or OM-Log profile. That's fine for the 4K modes, but it looks like ass in 1080p and even worse in 1080p 120... I think the cheapness you observed is really mostly down to that and less because of the Bokeh...
It would have even less dynamic range in standard profile.
@@cameraconspiracies can you change the sharpness settings on the OM Log profile? Just wondering
@@martinhommel9967 No, you can't :-/ Found out the hard way...
I’m so happy to see your woodpecker so clearly …
Lumix G9 and the 100-300mm Mark 2 would have faired MUCH better in this comparison, Kacey.
Agreed. The little G9 is made with love :)
Then watch the comparison I did with the g9 100-400mm vs Sony ua-cam.com/video/IGBq0_57i1g/v-deo.html
I wasn't overly impressed by either system. Sure you had better background blur and dynamic range with the sony but the difference in size, weight and price is significant too. There's always going to be some trade-off.
The glass matters more then the body.
I KNOW I will get harassed for this comment, but its my personal experience... if I shoot for clients they are more impressed and take me more seriously when I show up with all heavy bulky gear. And this is a big reason why I still carry all my heavy FF lenses etc to the shoots.
Yes, the end result might be similar in reality (or worst case, not even as good) but "first impressions last" when you show up Im afraid.
I don't care how good full frame is, I will never walk around carrying such huge stupid looking lens 🤣
Nikon 600mm f6.3 is same size as Olympus 300mm f4.
That duck flight was art
I don’t do much in video, but at one point I tried panasonic m4/3. I spent 3 1/2 charging the battery and was repackaging it for return within 30 minutes. The amount of information a full frame sensor collects is worth it’s weight in gold in still photography and in video. It leaves so many option for editing later.
That's a massive piece of glass....WOW...
Ok, so we have the worst and cheapest Oly telephoto vs Sony best and most expensive... Now please compare Oly 150-400 pro to anything from Sony. What will land in the bin???
We learned nothing.
Am I high? The Olympus does look better. Granted, the highlights are a little blown but color, contrast and sharpness looks so much better.
my eyessss that looks like canon m50 quality footage right there
That Kingfisher should have use the Canon cripple hammer to smash the worm.
I get home and see you've put a new funny funny video out in the galaxy. 😁I like to see it when i have to have some time for myself in bathroom, when you need more than 2 min. But today I had to look deep into the toilet, as I became more seasick than when I sailed across the Atlantic into a hurricane, from looking at the handheld 200-600 mm sony setup you have.
Your olympus footage looks like my tamron 150-500mm on a sony a7iv.
Clear answer for a backyard bird photography nerd. Probably drove a truck full of camera gear to within a few meters of the photo shoot. So heavy gear doesn't matter. Which system you gonna hump through miles of jungle and up some mountain to get a photo of a Yeti? Real wildlife photographers' travel kit includes a lot camping gear and food.
Somehow Andy Rouse manages... From Nikon to Sony to Olympus now.
If you did not already knew it, you can not compare apples and oranges!
Does the olympus only look that camcorder shitty in 120 FPS mode? Also, isn't there in-camera highlight and shadow compensation you could use even on standard footage that might help a bit with the crushed highlights? I've never had a camera good enough for 120 FPS footage to bother with it, and to jump up on to that Sony to do it is way too much money for my modest use cases.
I bring my olympus tough 860 with me and selfie stick if things get heavy
i always shoot turtles in at least 1000 frames per second and from 2 miles away.
Nobody brags about Olympus video........ ever. lol For most people the sony set up is not what? $2000 + and how many pounds better? When you add up the chiropractor bills? Forget it :)
Can you recommend me a good normal-zoom...ish solution for my new A7III. Is the 24-105 to get as an all rounder, or should i go for the Tamron G2 28-75 or somethinng similar? Hard taking desicion.
I smell nikon new ambassador here 😂😂😍🙏
Probably OM1 with proper glass would do the trick…