Super-Zoom Head-to-head! Can YOU tell the difference?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 лип 2024
- I've managed to get my hands on the DELIGHTFUL Sigma 60-600mm super zoom for the Lumix S5ii full frame. I thought it would be a great opportunity to compare both my micro four thirds and full frame systems to see which might be best to take on Safari.
★ Check out MPB here and see if you can grab a bargain!
MPB UK: geni.us/ST2V
MPB US: geni.us/STZ48b5
MPB EU: geni.us/dOkLk0z
Photo Presets: www.microfournerds.com/lightr...
timestamps:
00:00 hello
00:43 does size matter? ooo eye
03:20 image quality compared
04:32 dynamic range comparison
05:22 stabilisation compared
07:29 sponsor
08:32 price comparison
09:35 FUN QUIZ! can you tell the difference?
10:58 sigma are awesome
#lumix #wildlifephotography
▾ ▿ ▾ ▿ ▾ ▿ ▾
All photos edited with my Custom Presets: www.microfournerds.com/lightr...
(Some links in the description are Amazon affiliate links. If you choose to buy using them, I get a small commission at no cost to you.)
▶︎ My Instagram is @emilymaylowrey : geni.us/iEGHxrQ
▾ ▿ ▾ ▿ ▾ ▿ ▾
🤓 Nerds Facebook Group: geni.us/G0iUofA - Навчання та стиль
Which do you prefer?? 📸📸📸📸
You nailed it: for the casual shooter, M43 all the way. The size and weight difference is just too huge to ignore. HOWEVER, professionals might want to rely on full-frame as you can't cheat physics in low-light situations.
You know me, microfourthirds for ever. But Lumix full frame is enticing. It is the one full frame i truly want.
I still think being able to lug all the kit around is important, the weight has to be a consideration. Especially if you think the difference is only that extra 5% you mentioned. Great video, did I see you for a few seconds in Kai's last youtube?
100% MFT if you are travelling (which is why I switched my main set-up to MFT) because its sooooo much easier to carry them.
Particularrly for Africa (Kenya + Tanzania), you are likely not going to be on Safari at night/sunset etc. as parks close before sundown due to protecting animals from poachers.
This is the use case where M34 has the most advantage, the long zoom. OM system finally decided to lean into this as a strength. For sure I'd take the M43, because I too am a weakling! I can mostly tell which images are the GH6, but it's based on very subtle color rendering differences. Is full frame slightly sharper, more pleasing .. okay, yes, they are, but it's hard to tell is it the AI tracking, the glass, etc.
Might think about time of year and whether your safari will have after-dark camp time, etc .. M43 can't compete there, but bring one of your awesome compact fast primes, and I think you'll be happy :)
I'd take the M43gear. 95% is good enough for me. I know for me I'm more likely to use it all day. I'm guilty in the past, of leaving the heavy stuff behind or really having to force myself to drag it around with me and that sucks all the fun out photography for me. Perfection kills the fun and I want to enjoy my photography not dread it 😂
I've used Fuji cameras with their 100-400, Sony with the Sigma 100-400, and Canon with the RF 100-400 and 800/11. All were great, but I'm coming back to a G9 and the 100-400. 95% of the way there is better than my shooting, most days :)
Great conundrum to be in. We’ve just returned from New Zealand and I took two Olympus lenses (12-40mm pro & 40-150mm pro) and The OMD EM1 Mk iii and that was a comfortable “lug around” set up. Fantastic results. Unless you can afford a Sherpa you already know the answer.........M43! Have a great trip and I look forward to your exploits.
I own the 100-400 Pl by myself. Combined with my OM1 (Incusive Bird and Animal Detect) it's an insane combo. I see absolutely no reason why I should ever switch to FF. The low light story... and you mentioned it, is only one, in case you're completely misexposed. The rest is a small task for DXO in todays world ;-)
I walk everywhere, I see no reason why I should ever own a car. I'm equally fast on foot and everyone is stuck in a traffic jam anyway. If I need to transport something large, I use a backpack.
Love your channel, informative content, and positive attitude. Keep it up! :)
EDIT: Still a faithful follower of M43... nothing against full-frame, it's awesome, especially for lower light situations... but the size and weight difference is huge for me! I just bump up the ISO and shoot away. :)
Same haha! Thank you so much ☺️
Fullframe is great when you are home and studio or on a filmset as you don't have to carry it all everywhere (I have Rolly Cases). But when you are travelling size and weight matters SO much I've been a lot happier travelling with MFT gear then I have been with Full Frame.
I binged you videos like crazy the last few days, i love your style and your videos! Just got your presets and cant wait to see them in action, i just tested a few of them and they are an absolute banger! Keep up this awesome work, you definitely inspired me a lot.
Oof, that's a tough call. I think for travel and safari, I'd lean towards the smaller M43 camera and lens. You're likely going to want to use it more and I feel like weight and space are always a consideration (or frustration) when traveling. That said, if you have a willing camera assistant, who's happy to carry gear around, then the full-frame might win out.
You have the skill and photographic eye to make great shots. That's what counts.
Nobedy misses the shot you didn't get. 20 years ago bird photography meant sitting birds. Nowaways, every hobby photographer gets birds-in-flight. Nobody says 'too bad you didn't get a bat'.
Nobody is going to comment 'I am so glad you took that big heavy monster with you' because whatever you take, they'll appreciate the shots you show them, not the ones that could have been.
That’s a wonderful perspective thank you!
2:32 - I literally spat out my drink 🤣 I think it was the unexpected music... Great vid as always, you definitely make the M43 system look like a godsend for wildlife shooting thanks to how compact it is. I had no idea just how much weight you save with that system compared to FF!
😂 my friends wouldn’t walk with me at the zoo. I think that’s why that bloke thought I was a member of staff 🙈🙈🙈🙈
Great video! I'm actually here watching this while waiting for my 70 300 from fuji to arrive eheh. There is definitely better choices but I actually went with it because of portability (and the price diference also helps, got a 1.4x teleconverter as well for less that the fuji 100-400mm).
Oh yes, there it is. Thank you for the work.
Only missing a comparison / some words regarding the facts, that not only the 100-400 is double in terms of full frame, but also the F4.0-6.3 are F8.0-12.6 (FF).
So yes, a GH6 is not bad in Low Light, but the S5II should be much better and 60-600 F4.5-6.3 should be a big win over the smaller setup.
But yes, the size…
After we wrote under another of your videos where you have spoilered this new video and after watching this, I still do not know if we wanna go on with 2x S5II, waiting for S1H II and combine this with a S5II or using 2 systems = S5II now and GH6
There is the need of a long zoom tele like 100-400 (M43) or 60-600 (FF).
Also an option would be R6II or the R3 we are owning, with RF100-500 and maybe with 2x Extender. But we would be happy to return to Panasonic after beeing some years now with Canon (had the LX100, G85, GH5, G9… in the past).
So summarized: thanks for the video but also now, so „clear view“ on what to do in the future (choosing a system). 😛🙈
Enjoy the end of the week and have a nice trip to Kenia (Massai Mara or also exploring more of the country?),
Daniel and Jessi 👋
"the 100-400 is double in terms of full frame, but also the F4.0-6.3 are F8.0-12.6 (FF)" - the DOF at F4.0 at 600mm will be a lot shallower on a full frame lens compared to f4.0 at 300mm on a m4/3 camera, the amount of light however at F4.0 on both camera's that comes in will be the same so the S5II will not be "a lot better", it will only be cleaner as shown in the video. The big win over a larger full frame setup is that you get double the reach at less then half the weight and size with better stabilization and that is what most doing animal/bird photography want.
@@robinput6267 mostly true words. But for this... "and that is what most doing animal/bird photography want." Why are mostly no real professionals on Safaris with M43 if this would be totally correct?
Have a nice weekend 👋
Thank you for a useful comparison to help folks decide, Emily. My bed is well and truly made with M43 now, I've accidentally accumulated 4 lenses including last weeks Meike 16mm T2.2 Cine lens. I wonder who's review leaned me towards that lens? ;) flipping love it so far!
Great comparison! I have joint problems and specifically had issues with holding weight with my wrists, so I actually went for a Nikon 1 J5 + 1 Nikkor 70-300mm VR. Total weight: 770g or 27 oz. Due to the Nikon CX crop factor, it maxes out at effective 810mm. It’s a beautiful lens too and the VR works very well. The CX sensor has more noise than m43 but it’s still very workable! My joints have improved so I will probably get an m43 setup in the future for birding, the one real downside of my setup is it doesn’t have any fancy autofocus animal tracking etc features.
Your style is so refreshing!
Great video as always :) I went to Uganda on safari with my G9 and G85. A few thoughts - the small gear was great as safari was a full 12 hour day often working from a vehicle (no tripod or mount) and was shattered by the end, wouldn’t fancy 3x heavier gear. The small g85 was great to have as a back up for next to no space (generally had set up with wider lens). AF gave a me a headache a few times on some of the faster animals, but for the most part no issues. The early morning was tough for light, but the sun rises very quickly. If I was going again I’d take the 100-400 but with the 35-100 for closer stuff and for better low light. Some of my fav shots were at 100mm so the f2.8 would have been grand!
Ooo brilliant thank you! I am gravitating towards this I think- dual wielding the 100-400 and the 35-100 2.8
@@MicroFourNerds I also got great results with my 42.5 f1.7 which is such a small we guy, we went on a Gorilla trek so the portrait style really helped as we were pretty close
Was just recently on a Safari and just had my em5 iii with the cheap Olympus 75-300mm.
I’m very pleased with the pictures I got.
As expected the Sun was bright so the f5.6 was not an issue and the gear was light and compact.
The perfect video for me! Debating whether to go FF from my compact MFT
If you're travelling, and you don't have a slave to carry your bags, ALWAYS go for lighter weight. I eventually ditched four thirds for MFT when I realised I was carrying around heavier kit than when I started out with 35mm about 100 years ago… Gear obsession just gets you a bad back if you're not careful.
Thanks! I find the middle ground to be APS-C. The Sigma or Canon 100-400 with the Fringer EF FX Pro II adapter work beautifully with the Fuji X line. Maybe the X-T5 with the 100-400? It will be a rather new system, but comparable in weight (and price) to the MFT [plus the 40 MP sensor]. If you don't want to splurge, I think the Lumix 100-400 is something special, and works fantastic with the G9 or GH5 (or GH6). Try Topaz AI to take the final image from 95% there to 100% there
that sigma is a stunning glass, sharpest at its wide open aperture, at which it provides much better subject separation and allows for up to 2 stops of iso performance overhead when mounted to FX setup, compared to m43. And it can be used in conjunction with high mpx sensor such as 45,60mpx.
A lens like 100-400 pana resolves something above 40 lpmm at its long end, mounted to 12mpx m43 sensor, which has the same pixel density as 45mpx FX sensor, which resolves up to 80lpmm on the latest nikon's Z-lenses for example*. Considering size of each sensor, that gives about 3.7x more lines resolved by the FF sensor in the output image and that is the power of fullframe there (delivered in conjunction with subject separation, DR, color depth etc)
*which I picked for comparison only due to its lpmms being available on the same pixel density sensor as a m43's ep-1 sensor
While there's more variables in play and this really shows the worst case scenario lets say, as there's stronger lenses in the m43 lineup than the panasonic(which is also weakest at its long end) and there's weaker lenses in the FX lineups than the latest z-glass such as 70-200, we can basically say that the absolutely best m43 lenses can compete with bellow-average/average FF lenses mounted to current low-mpx FF bodies. Big primes will absolutely annihilate them.
Eg a 300f4 by olympus getting to upwards of 75 lpmm on 20mpx m43 vs a nikkon 200-500 delivering about 35lpmm on 24mpx FF, which can be called approximately equal, sharpness-wise. Ofc there's other factors to optical output and sensor performance.
Just wanted to illustrate , that there IS a SIGNIFICANT difference in quality, speaking purely resolving power-wise, unlike what the comment section loves to claim and the weight/size savings do have (expected) drawbacks. Lastly, ofc there's more to performance of a system as a whole and it's usability to accommodate for photographer's needs and skills then just resolution, or then just noise tolerance, or any other metric evaluated on it's own.
When I take both, I use the MFT (g9) most the time, and FF rarely (when I know it is needed). Take the MFT, and a few extra fast primes, maybe a 17mm 1.8. If you are too tired to lift/hold the heavy lens, you miss the shot anyway.
Currently on safari in South Africa with a G9 and a Panasonic 50-200 - couldn't be more pleased with the combo. Light, manoeuvrable, stable.
Having been myself many many years ago with only a point and shoot my biggest issue was always not being able to get close enough. If I was going now I'd take my EM1 MK3, 300mm f4, 40-150 f2.8 and a fast prime for landscape, there are some incredible sunrise/sunsets out there. I don't think there's a right and wrong answer, depends where the trip takes you and how much you will be on foot, though If you plan this as a once in a lifetime trip I say go big and get the best quality you can!
It is now going on three years since I switched from Canon full frame to Lumix MFT. The lens size difference is wonderful and I love the quality I get. Yes there are technical advantages to full frame, but that is negated by leaving big lenses at home where it is useless, while MFT lenses are light enough to carry a full kit with me, and always be ready to get the shot.
I opted for the Olympus 100-400 because it works with teleconverters while the Lumix version does not. I guess that is another advantage - having two great first party brands to choose from for the same system, plus the plethora of third party brands meaning my Lumix cameras get paired with Lumix, Olympus, Sigma, Laowa, Samyang, Voigtlander, and adapted EF and Nikon. And an AstrHori probe lens is in my future. MFT is spoiled for choices.
I still own a GH5 and GH5S with a few lenses, but I added an S5 a while ago and hardly use my MFT cameras anymore (mostly as B cameras for event shooting). If you decide to take the FF camera, something I found really helped me when carrying my Sigma 150-600 (25% less weight than the 60-600!) is using the Camera Support Straps made for my ThinkTank Streetwalker camera backpack. They attach to the shoulder straps, which distributes the weight across both shoulders. It makes a huge difference when carrying that big lens for a long time, but also with my Sigma 24-70. The 150-600 lens with camera attached fits, barely, inside the backpack, which makes it even more convenient.
I purchased Olympus for a few reasons, light weight, great autofocus, weather resistance ! after Nikons my first Oly was the Em1 Mk iii, great camera purchased just before lockdown when everyone one was saying Olympus was going under, they went for cost price ! 6mths ago I purchased the OM-1, it is a game changer even in low light. My birding lens are the 40-150 F2.8 Pro and the 300 F4 Pro with the 1.4 teleconverter. I have been able to create images as good as the best full frame cameras and sometimes better. Your Panasonic is a great Camera but for me it is a lead brick because of the weight. There is no way I personally would carry that no matter how good it is to the places here in New Zealand and Australia for birding, it would break my back ! Lol, Cheers
I would choose the OM1 + Oly 150-400mm f4.5 TC1.5 :). The OM1 is the better MFT Wildlife Camera option and the 150-400 is optically far superior compared against the Leica and the Sigma, and smaller and lighter compared with the Sigma, and would be my choice for professional Photography. I would choose though the GH6 + Leica 100-400mm for video work.
I did a safari a few years back with the predecessor to the 60-600 - the Sigma 50-500mm on a Pentax Kit APS-C (About 750mm equivalent full frame). I now shoot all my wildlife / zoo / nature photography with the Lumix 100-400mm on a G9. I wish I had this setup back then - you cannot over estimate the value of the extra reach on safari - so many situations where we simply couldn't get closer to the subject, and the required crop factor on the shots (even with a tripod) were unusable. Only other consideration is the need for a decent wide angle zoom as there will also be situations where you need a lot less than 100mm.
It’s rare that you hear intelligent comments, reviews, opinions, on M4/3. Great breakdown !
So competent and so smiling... With the difference of weight between 60-600 and 100-400 (1800 gr), I can hold second body+12-60 Pana Leica... and I am allways lighter. Hiking with a range of 12 to 400 (24 to 800) is just a dream...
Your fine and informative videos always put a smile on my face! :-) Thanks for that ! ( The question that is on my mind is : When will Panasonic import the new focus technology from the S5 mk2 into the GH6 ..mk2 !? )
Soooon I hope!!! 🙏🙏🙏🙏
Hello, I would definitely go with the 100-400... I get so tired with anything bigger than that when I hike...
And considering low-light situations, I use DxO Pureraw III to process my RAWs, the gain is phenomenal...
Well, it really depends on what your focus is, I guess. When you really *just* want to go on a safari, sitting in a car most of the day, then I would probably opt for the full frame setup. But the moment you also want to take the camera for shots during city excursions, especially when it's hot outside - M4/3 is the way to go. Plus it is easier to conceal when in let's say not-so safe environments.
M43 of course! That way you'll enjoy the trip.
I'd take the M43, the images you got with the GH6 were my favorites and the humongous SIGMA doesn’t seem very travel friendly to me.
I didn’t watch yet, but was waiting to this coming online. 👍👍. . You gonna do some tests on birds and eventually birds in flight also? I’m curious how the s5II handle that.
I have never been to a Safari in Africa, but I have used the G9 and the 100-400 for wildlife in the last 2years in different countries and lighting conditions, and I can assure it is very good. For wildlife in low light I bought the Olympus 40-150 f2.8, but I use it sparingly, only if I know in advance that my subject will be close and the light won't be good. You could use your 35-100 on a second m43 body...but ask to other people who have done a safari before how many landscape shots they took, because I would not leave the 12-60 at home if I were you.
Besides, two m43 bodies (1 big and 1 small) and the 3 lenses I suggested you weight just a little more than the combo s5ii+ 60-600..
I understand why this comparison of a full frame versus a micro-4/3 is focused on here, that's the point of this channel! However, please bear with me, I'm going to delve into a non-FF-vs-m43 world for a second as someone who has done extensive birding with m43 and dabbled in full-frame.
There is a sweet spot for APS-C cameras for wildlife. Having a 1.5-1.6 crop factor to give you the extra focal length and extra "pixels on the subject" is something to behold. Also, since the sensor is right in-between full-frame and m43 size, you get a solid gamut of dynamic range and improved ISO performance.
If you pair this with DxO PureRAW or Topaz DeNoise, it's as if you're shooting full frame but with way higher pixel density on what you care about... your subject.
Even on an older APS-C camera like a Canon 7D mark II, I am seeing massive benefits to using an APS-C sensor. I have reach for days multiplying my 600mm lens to 960mm and I also have good ISO/dynamic range for low-light shots.
I say all this to not attack m43 or full frame, but to point out that there is a middle ground in-between these two cameras on display. You don't need to do an either/or and many, many bird/wildlife photographers still use the ancient APS-C camera I've described above. The newer APS-C cameras are even better sensor-wise and provide further improved auto-focus technologies (vital for wildlife shots).
Hi Emily! I would choose MFT. If you are willing to carry a large lens, I would also choose MFT and take the Olympus 150-400mm f4.5 with me! It is important to mention that Olympus is smaller, lighter and optically MUCH superior than Sigma. The best solution that combines image quality and portability is MFT. The fun factor is also very important and an almost 3 kg lens is no fun…
Great video :) I think I'd take the Full Frame just to have that little bit extra quality. A good problem to have (y)
Got to be the M43 setup. I too am planning for a safari, and am going with my OM-1 with Olympus 100-400, and a second body with probably my 12-100. The portability and manoeuvrability for me out weigh any perceived benefits of 35mm equivalent setups. I don't plan to worry about ISO at all, getting the exposure right is most important. Should any shots have noise I want to reduce then Topaz Photo AI can take care of it. But most of all enjoy the experience, which I'm sure you will.
I will also have my 2x teleconverter which would give an insane range of up to 1600mm, although it will reduce the max. aperture to f13 and also reduce the effectiveness of the in lens IS. But it still may be fun to try 😊
Exactly what I would do if I were going on your trip. 👍
Full frame is the one to choose for portrait and wedding photography but for practically everything else I'd go with M 4/3. Most M 4/3 cameras are far better at video production than full frame as well.
I love the M43 system. I have an EM1 Mark III with Pro lenes. I sell my work on line and at galleries and have never had a buyer say "oh, I'm not buying your work because it wasn't shot with a FF camera".
You might say M43 is only for the Pro, because you really need to get things right when you capture. FF makes it quite a bit simpler for all because so much can be corrected later - at the expense of weight and cost etc. Practically, it does seem a bit easier to get the shallow focus look with FF if that's important, but on the whole you really can't fault M43.
I attach a long shoulder strap to Sigma 150-600 and wear it crossbody. Can hardly feel the weight. I bought the EF contemporary version that weighs less and adapted it to Sony A7IV. I love it for early morning bird photography, but Leica 100-400 was perfect at the Detroit Zoo.
I'd recommend using the 100-400mm on a rented OM-1. It's low light capabilities are remarkable. The only thing you won't get is the extra subject separation that you can get with full frame, or to some extent with the flagship OM system telephoto lenses. That being said, the GH6 will probably be fine in a pinch.
I think the full-frame option is best for someone who has little to no issues with the extra size or weight. That isn't me, and it probably isn't you.
I love the look from the FF models I've reviewed like the Nikon Z9 and the Leica M11, but no FF setup will ever match the versatility of M4/3, I can carry a tiny GX80 plus a 20mm prime and a 45-150 and have an entire incredible travel setup that'll fit in jacket pockets.
I love my gx85 for travel. My s5 is phenomenal but carrying for long periods is not as fun. Took the s5 with my 100-400 to the zoo and my hand went numb and wrist started to hurt. Gx85 I can carry all day especially with the 100-300.
M43. Even in low light you can scrape by if you and the subject are static by taking advantage of the IBIS and making your shutter speed a bit faster as you should still get crisp shots. Rule of thumb is 1/focal length for shutter speed. Well with having at least 6 stops with IBIS on the M43 at 800mm you could arguably drop the shutter from the ideal 1/800 to 1/320 - 1/200 without suffering at all unsupported on a static object. Granted with a monopod you could probably drop it a bit more and still be good. Just a thought.
I would take the M4/3, with the 100-400, and the S5ii, with a wide angle/short zoom. Saves swapping out lens and overall won’t be to heavy.
M43 is a great system for holiday photography, as you say, 95% capable. Quality yet compact. The S5ii & that super Sigma is wonderful, but I think you'll be needing another holiday after using it on holiday, unless you're going off for a serious photography holiday...( enough holidays!) Go MFT.
And you never know, by the time you go, the 30 megapixel, PDaf, G9 mkii might have been launched??!! 😉
Oooof if a g9ii is out by then… I’d be so happy haha but who knows what lumix has in mind! 🙏
@@MicroFourNerds Well, I have several sources claiming that a G9 M2 is in the works and most likely will be the first Lumix G with PDAF. Unfortunately a release this spring might be to early.
I'll be happy if it just uses the best available Sony 20 MP sensor free from CMOS streaking and strange "DR boost" functions. :-p
Great thoughts and gee, I'm so happy that I decided to ditch my 7D2 before I got the Sigma 150-600mm 'bazooka'. I would take the GH5 and one of your other bodies with the most versatile short Zoom you have, like 12-60 or 12-100mm. The weight of both will still be less than the FF combo alone and you'll cover all bases without the need to change lenses in the dusty environments.
Thanks.
Take the Full Frame + Sigma. 200-800 FF equivalent is too long if you want to shoot a safari with only 1 camera body w/o swapping lenses. I brought a 70-200 F4 with me last autumn in South Africa and was surprised how close we got to a lot of the animals, 70mm came in clutch. Sure I missed the reach on the long end quite often, but it was sufficient. You should be set up perfectly with 60-600.
Great video. Take the M43 zoom ...very capable lens. I have done several videos on my channel using the PL100-400 and it produces very good results!!😀👍
The Sigma is an excellent lens because of the 10x zoom that makes it so versatile. In the end, its most important which one is more fun and you will want to use it after a whole day of shooting. If the full frame is too heavy and you will skip shots at the end it's not worth it.
If I go now I'll go with my trusty OM-1 with 40-150 and 150-400 PRO lenses... wait, I don't own 150-400 lenses, but this is the best wildlife/birding lens for me.
I use the G9 with the 100-400 sometimes. It’s a great combo, generally. My 100-400 is not sharp at 400mm, though. The 100-300 is a good alternative if you need to save some money. I do like it when an MFT user compares MFT to full frame. The comparison is much more realistic than when someone who has spent little or no time with MFT starts criticizing the “tiny” sensor. You can tell some of those people are up in the night. Thanks for showing us that 60-600 leviathan! 👍😁🙏
You need to stop down two steps (not stops) at 400mm then it’s sharp. 😉
I still love the 150 - 600 Sigma. Used it today. Got great shots of the Seattle Space Needle. It is a bit heavy...
My zoom setup is the best (or worst) of both worlds. Micro four thirds camera, speed booster and full frame zoom. Tbf the canon 70-200 f4 L isn't too big
I use the 100-400 with my G9 and love it. I wouldn’t want to carry the bigger, heavier set up. Anywhere.
I was recently at a trade event at WEX, chatting to the Panasonic rep I noticed the S5 with the Sigma 60-600 attached, went to pick it up and initially thought it had been bolted to the table 🤣 it’s quite a weigh! 🏋🏻
For me, there is no contest - MFT all the way. I don't think anyone would want to carry equipment the size of that FF zoom if they could help it. Taking the comment that MFT will take you 95% of the way there, that other 5% can be handled in post production. Finally, in my mind, a FF camera/lens combo like in this video just screams "rob me!" when traveling.
As someone that switched to the s5 from the g85…..i would 100% take that mft setup for safari if i’m not getting paid for it.
As someone who has carried two S5 rigs across the globe last year, I would definitely prefer the micro 4/3. And my bag is only 30 L!
For me the comparison I've been trying to find out more on is APSC and M43. Coming from a Canon 600D, I've actually been looking at reducing the size of my kit. I'll never go full frame. It's just too cumbersome for me.
I shoot both, Pentax APS-C and Olympus m43. My Pentax DSLR does have overall better image quality, but I can get close with my oly shots, especially if I work on RAW shots in PP. Most Oly cameras make great JPEGs in full quality in camera for me, so sometimes I don't need to PP.
I SAY GO FOR IT! If you're looking to get the newer Oly/OMDS or Lumix cameras you can't go wrong. The Oly stuff tends to be best with photos. Lumix is great if you also work with video as many of their cameras have video friendly features.
Ofc on narrow lenses its not noticable since u can only get so much bokeh in a 85mm and up. try a wide lens with a wide opening, you can tell the diff for sure.
many FF lenses has no equivalent in m43 lens line-ups so they cant achieve same look. same as in medium format, some the lenses there has no full frame equivalent.
The Sigma that you have is a L mount right? If it were an EF mount, you can use it with a Metabones XL on the GH6 and get more light = f/4.0 constant...
One of the key deciders of what gear I take is baggage allowance on flights. If you are stuck with 7kgs then MFT will always win. By the time you throw in a laptop etc. you are quite limited. I did take a Canon R5 and Sigma 100-400mm lens, +adapter, to an airshow. Have to admit, had back spasms towards the end of the day from holding the thing - should have packed a monopod.
If you plan to do any walking (which you should) then M43. Bring the 10-25 for the wide shots. Use HHHR. If it was a full car-based safari, and once-in-a-lifetime, then FF. But I hope your career will let you repeat ;-). Then you will go to Namibia and be blown away.
Personally, I do lots of outdoor and 50-200 is the limit for me. I carry FF for wide shots but all tele is done on MFT.
M43, because if you are out, day after day, as you will be in Kenya, the weight of the full frame setup will take its toll. By the end of the trip you may not even reach in your bag.
Went to the G9 and 100-400 after I got cancer and found it hard to lug around my 5Div with 150-600 for wildlife and birding it doesn't loose much to the 5D - though in dawn shooting I usually pack my 5D 300 2.8 with a 2x tcIII on a monopod and just pick a spot and not move much
I do prefer the M43 System due to even better stabilization, smaller and lighter system as well as the tilt viewfinder of my GX8. With the 100-400 PL I usually use the G9, that is still a system I can carry along for long trips. And I always do not forget: the hardware helps to manage critical situations - in most cases it is better to avoid these situations and be happy with the system I have. As far as you know the limits of your system you can make good photos (saying it with a background of astrophotography with M43 😂)
If I were going on safari I would take 2 full frame bodies. One with a 400mm F2.8 (with optional 1.4x tele) and the other with a 100-400. There are quite a few reasons… firstly… safaris are expensive. If you are a photographer you want a backup (hence 2 bodies)… but having the flexibility to shoot close or far without changing lenses is important. The other reasons are about subject separation, the fact that a lot of the animals are more active during the lower light times, and that you generally want to have a fast shutter speed set at all times because you never know when action is going to happen. Sure you can get fairly good results with M4/3 and then you get noise you can put it through noise cancelling but you lose a bunch of the hair or feather detail. That’s not even mentioning that at the same effective focal lengths on full frame you will have more pixels to play with for cropping. It depends though what is important for you… you could shoot the whole thing with one of those crazy superzoom cameras (the fixed lens ones) and be even lighter. You could take full frame and get something like the canon RF 800 F11 or RF 600 F11 and get around the same limitations in terms of low light and subject separation as the M4/3 (obviously without the flexibility of zoom). Hope the trip is / was good!
Having shot nikon full frame and m43rds extensively, there are definitely differences particularly as you suggest dynamic range and higher iso is vastly better on full frame. Also the extra subject separation on an equivalent aperture can be very useful. Having said that on my olympus em 10 I can carry the ultra light plastic 40-150 which is great for telephoto, it just doesn't give the same results in some situations. I happily still use both but for different things.
Distance has become much narrower in the last few years. When talking about subject separation with big zooms, most of it comes from distance from camera to subject and subject to background, you can achieve superb separation with M43 and APS-C. You can also buy really fast apperture M43 lens, which in part compensates for that effect, and at a decent price
I don't know what lenses you are using for your Nikon setup, but as remarkable as the "plastic fantastic" 40-150mm lens is, there are many MFT lenses which are vastly better. Also, the upscale Olympus/OM System bodies have much better image stabilization and better image processing. Just the 5.5 or more stops of IBIS from these bodies will allow you to shoot several stops lower ISO than most FF systems which reduces any FF "high ISO" advantage.
@@gregfeeler6910 well not really unless you are shooting a static subject.
@@steventhomas231 Not entirely. The Olympus/OM System IBIS on the default setting (S-IS Auto) detects the camera movement and applies IS as needed. Also, the OM-1 has arguably the best, or ties with the best, bird and animal tracking of any digital camera, and IS is applied to that. There's a strong argument for the MFT system, but then there's what Olympus/OM System has and is doing with it that so surpasses almost all other camera systems.
@@gregfeeler6910No it doesn't...bit of an overstatement.
The OM-1 is a good camera, but it's not the best.
I would test your M43 files with DXO PhotoLab or DXO PureRaw and see how that combo stacks up to full frame and then go from there.
Smaller is always better. It enables you to move more freely and forget about your gear. Go with to m43.
Take the m4/3 and be happy with the 95%.I think your pics looks fantastic regardless of format.
Take the S5II with a small short FL lens and the MFT to handle the tele work
If the issue is weight, maybe you could justify packing a couple of extra M43 lenses to help cover the range? I love carrying around the 100-400 paired with the 12-35, personally.
For the safari, i would take the S5II with a general purpose standardzoom like 12-60 for low light and near situations, and additionally the MFT system as a long range cannon.
Especially when walking a lot, i would not carry the really heavy sigma lense all the way - and it steals place in the bag for other lenses or tools.
That’s an interesting point - I’ve discovered I’ll be there during the new moon, so I’d love to take my full frame for some astro with smaller lenses, and then the m43 for animals
@@MicroFourNerds Yes, that sounds as a good additional purpose for which the FF is definitely better. Also for Zoos i personally keep beside the G9 with 400er Lens a small GX800 for wide angel shots with me, with a prime or 12-60, then i can react flexibel and for most easy situations is the small body with a wide lense enough.
Thanks for your lovely videos btw. 🙂
Great video! Why did you choose to have both a ff and a m43 system? Just curious
Weddings primarily. You can definitely shoot wedding photos with smaller sensors, but I wanted excellent low light performance for when clients were paying a premium amount as my business grew. For everything else, m43 😁
Great video Em!
there are some other interesting developments in FF telephone lenses.
e.g., Canon FF 600mm f/11 @ 930g @ £830
vs Olympus MFT 300mm f/4 @ 1,270g @ £2,400
The MFT is built for a difficult class of photographer than the FF lens. But this comparison is an interesting "opposite" to your comparison video. Can the Canon get 95% of the shots of the Olympus?
This lens comparison also reverses the crop factor which we often apply when looking at FF lenses :)
It would be a good idea to take both. Use the pany with 100- 400
Use the full frame with a 25-50mm as you won't get a Giraffe or an elephant with the 100-400. Plus changing lenses is a bit of a pain because if the vehicle starts moving you have to make sure the lens you just took of is not going to drop and break.
I think you would enjoy your Safari adventure more with the M43 size, you will always have subjects that will be just that bit to far away. Plus weak arms are no good in the bar at night!
MFT with good glass. I don't just don't do telezoom wildlife. I also do macro. I carry the G9 with the 100-400 but can also carry my Olympus camera attached with the 60 macro and also have with me the 40-150 2.8 if I'm going in the woods and need extra light. But right now in the Southern US, we don't have much of a low light problem. I don't know if I'm hiking all the time with the FF setup and I get enough questions about the MFT stuff lol. But if the FF was put in my hands, I wouldn't say no.
M43 all the way - think of the baggage allowance!😂
In September I'm going on a river cruise and I plan on getting the Panasonic 100-300mm lens. It's $550 (USA price) from B&H Photo new. The smaller range allows for a smaller and cheaper lens than the Panasonic 100-400mm lens. That plus the 12-60mm kit lens that came with my G95 should be a great combination.
The 100-300 is soft from 200mm+. The 100-400 is soft from 300mm+. Using the 100-400 in the 100-300mm range is the best as far as picture quality is concerned.
@@GrenlandUnderVann I checked several UA-cam reviews about the lens as well as comments from B&H. If you shoot wide open, the image is softer than at 200mm and lower. However, many report that stopping the lens down to F7.1 to F8 improves the sharpness at 300mm.
I took my 100-400 on safari definitively my go to lens. I have just got the S5 and am looking at the 60-600 but there is no way I can carry that around so keeping the M43 for wildlife and the S5 for landscape
Take the M43, shoot at high ISO and get the shots you would have missed resting your arms carrying the FF. Wait a couple of years when DXO Photolab 7, 8 or 9 has been released and re-process your photos. They will look like FF, lol.
I was a M4/3 shooter for years and have now for the past 12 months or so been shooting with the Lumix S Series full frame system, I loved the portability of the M4/3 system, but the overall image quality and lack of fine detail made me look towards full frame. I know it is heavy, but if you only plan to do one safari I would take the full frame as it will get you better images overall in all conditions! Just my thoughts, not a proven fact.
You get the extra shot IF you have the camera with you. BTW: the -300s from Olypmpus or Panasonic are even MUCH cheaper. Too bad we don't have current sensors in MFT - there is NO technical reason FF sensors can't be cropped too...
Hoping (wishing?) you also did some landscapes and time lapse on safari ❤
Plenty of landscape! Not much timelapse unfortunately!
It's a hard decision. I have Sony full frame and micro four thirds, and I almost always bring my MFT gear over the Sony when I am shooting for fun. It's just so much nicer to walk around with. Not to mention the stabilization is a lot more pleasant looking for video. But the Sony is just insane in low light. I need a supertele and I am seriously struggling deciding which system to buy it for. I'm leaning towards the Panny 100-400. The 200-600 for Sony is basically a bazooka.
M43 all the way! Gear weights less, has a tremendous image quality and the IBIS technology is incredible
I would take the M43 gear, no question. I hate lugging around heavy glass.
Having been on Safari (back in 2009)... We turned it into a Photo Safari and learnt a lot when we shot for 2 weeks with Nikon gear. So if you need tips let me know (I think I should make a series on my channel about the trip). Big Take Away - Only 3x did animals get close enough that we switched from Telephoto (70-200 + 2x and 80-400mm) to wide to get some closer shots so those teles will live on your camera. (Also its Dusty so bring a 2nd MFT body with a wide lens) switching in the field is a dust nightmare.
Aah brilliant tips thanks so much! Yes I was wondering about changing lenses (or not being able to.) I wonder if I went with the 100-400mm on my gh6 and the. The 35-100mm f2.8 on the gh5 (or similar) ?
@@MicroFourNerds that sounds like a good combo, then pop the 12-35mm on your GM1 or similar for those landscape shots or whatnot when you have large herds of animals you want to capture all at once.
The 100-400 mm is unfortunately to slow at 400 mm, the f6.3 brings the resolution into diffraction limited "hell" so to speak. The 200 mm f2.8 with the 2x tele converter is better (still f5.6 with the converter).
Wildlife shooter here. Personally, if you can handle the weight I would take the FF setup. That way you can get some wide shots with animals surrounded by the landscapes. And the better high-ISO performance will help you keep your shutter speeds high. Also, a lot of good wildlife encounters happen early in the AM when you need a bit of a higher ISO to compensate for the lower light. It's a tricky call, I agree, and I currently use the PL 100-400 on my G9 and I love the extra reach (I used a 100-300 before) but there are times when I wish I had wider. You can't go wrong though!
I could tell which of them were from the micro four thirds because you had them oversharpened in comparison with the full frame ones. Other than that, I think they are good enough to be honest
I think the biggest advantage of the sigma lens is the starting focal length of 60, M43 is lighter but starting at 200 limits the use for me a bit.
On the other hand, you could also carry a 12-32 pancake zoom, *and* a 20 f1. 7 for micro4/3 without noticing them in your pockets, and if you wanted to be able to switch down focal lengths without changing lens, you could take a second body as well within the total weight of the S5 setup.
Full frame looks better but m43 is obviously more comfortable to bring. Plus with the new AI denoise stuff available in lightroom, topaz etc, the extra noise is really easy to deal with.