5 Reasons to Choose Full Frame over Micro 4/3

[@Reyfox1]

I use M43 for size and weight. I know the advantages and disadvantages of both and chose smaller for what I do. Stuffing gear in backpack and bike riding or traveling. Knowing how to use the tool that you have and it's limitations is also key. I've had big Canon, but need hybrid with good 4K.

[@WhatAboutTom]

Totally!

[@rickvestuto]

@@WhatAboutTom Please come to The print house that I own and we will do a side by side comparison of printed DOF so I can prove to you that you can't tell the difference You see I actually know from experience rather than you watching other peoples videos...lol The end

[@WhatAboutTom]

@@rickvestuto I didn't mention anything about quality, notice how u keep assuming things. The main downside of using a speedbooster is the reduced speed and accuracy of autofocus. Had you paid attention to my video, you would've known that I said that.

[@HansBaier]

Both of the videos are excellent! Best of what I have seen on this topic on KZbin so far.

[@Detaileddesignsautospa]

Hey Tom, great content man. And thanks for the feedback on the lamp heat testing. I have been shooting a gh5s for about 6 months and really love it as a good all-in-one body that is primarily used for video. Your observation about a photographer wanting a FF is on-point IMO. When I want money-shots, I grab my d810. It is an awesome time to be into videography and photography....the sane is true with cars. Times are good!

[@craftedshutter]

Thanks, Just switched from 4/3 to a Sony A7III and love it!!!

[@WhatAboutTom]

Nice!

[@MrSUKH]

Talking things are really good buy we need B-rolls in between for good engagement

[@dmacrolens]

You need Grammarly.

[@HansBaier]

You might want to use a gimbal for the handheld shots!

[@owleprojects8985]

please update what u r shoot with and what u r recoding audio with also which light u r using.. it might be helpful... :)

[@TSPTech]

Almost 1K!

[@WhatAboutTom]

Hell yeah!

[@filmdaniel2547]

1.2k dick weed

[@ChrisWilliams-nf8kl]

You’re mostly wrong about bigger pixels meaning less noise. It does give you an advantage at extremely high ISOs because the shot noise ceiling is going to be higher and you’re also going to have less data to process. But at any sensitivity setting a 35mm sensor is going to have roughly a two stop advantage because the sensor size means you can collect four times the light (which is double x 2 = 2 stops). You can mitigate that by having faster lenses, but a lot of mft users seem to think you get a free lunch. The Sigma18-35 adapted does work really well though and speed boosted you’re getting roughly the equivalent of 25-50 @ f2.4 - and it’s super sharp into the bargain. You do throw away any weight and size advantage, but switch to a native lens and you’ve got it back. Yeah you’re never going to match f1.4 or lower on FF, but honestly I can’t remember any occasion where I’ve had a need for the razor thin (literally on anything other than something pretty wide at normal shooting distances) that sort of aperture yields- it’s one eye in focus stuff. The big criticism I have of mft lenses is that they’ve become super-expensive for what they are. Manuals or adapted lenses show up the difference in stark relief. Things like the Olympus 12-100 (who the hell wants an f8 equivalent constant anyway?), the Panny 42.5 f1.2 and 200 f2.8 are silly money and the forthcoming 10-25 f1.7 will likely be obscenely overpriced. Good glass undoubtedly- but the high margins are a great way to make sure it stays a niche market.

[@WhatAboutTom]

If this were true then how exactly are cameras like the GH5S better in low light than something like the 5D Mark IV?

[@ChrisWilliams-nf8kl]

That's very simple - it isn't [not by a long way] - in stills that is. But I suspect you're talking about video - where that Canon uses an absolutely massive crop of the sensor - meaning the area it's using is probably slightly smaller than that of the Panasonic. That's the main difference. But you can add the Canon is 2 years older, has the worst performance of just about any modern FF sensor- partly because it's not so efficient as the Sony Fab'd sensors and it also gives away a bit more because of the nature of the dual pixel design. The GH5 also is helped out a bit by the dual native ISO used in lower light. But again once you sample down the still images from the overall sensor area, the Canon beats the GH5 by a very comfortable margin. It's more than unsurprising it's trounced in video, because the Canon completely throws away the sensor area advantage simply by not using it.@@WhatAboutTom

[@WhatAboutTom]

@@ChrisWilliams-nf8kl Ok so how about for something like the A7 iii that has a full sensor readout? They have roughly the same low light capabilities, created within 1 year of each other, and somehow have similar low light?

[@ChrisWilliams-nf8kl]

Tom Ryan I’m not sure how the A7iii processes its video - I’m not going to look into every camera you cite. I do know that again if you downsample the image size of the stills, the difference between its output at any given iso and the GH5’s is even greater than with the Canon. So I imagine if the GH5 is competitive in video at high ISOs it is either that the Sony is losing out via a lower bit rate, pixel binning, or both - again the dual high iso gain would help a bit, but if it was the most significant factor, high ISO still images would be close. And they aren’t - not by any stretch of the imagination. This really isn’t rocket science - if you collect the light that strikes an area 1” squared, you collect four times the amount with an area 2” squared. Given similar efficiencies (Canon aside all these sensors are made by Sony or Toshiba) it really is as simple as that. As I mentioned earlier you can eke out a little more extreme high ISO performance using a larger pixel pitch, but nowhere near enough to compensate for collecting a lot more light in the first place. Per pixel noise does depend on pixel pitch. The pixel pitch of the GH5 is actually smaller than the Sony’s. A similar density would yield 40mp on a FF sensor. The A7Rs and Nikon D850s are optimised for resolution, but with either of those if you downsample an ISO 25600 still image to 10mp, they wipe the floor with the GH5 at equal exposures. I can’t see why that should be surprising. I’m not saying this because I hate mft - quite the contrary - I’ve recently bought a G9 and I think it’s a superb camera. Use a very fast lens and the sort of long exposures hand held the IBIS allows and it’s a low-light beast so long as you don’t mind the blur of anything in motion. I just don’t kid myself I couldn’t get something of equal quality at a quarter of the shutter duration with a modern ff sensor. Just like anyone else, “I cannae change the laws of physics”.

[@WhatAboutTom]

@@ChrisWilliams-nf8kl it just makes me curious why every camera that was made for low light has a small MP count. It makes me unsure of the counterargument u made.

[@TheTBvision]

keep going bro! oh and im switching from aps-c to full frame wish me luck lol

[@WhatAboutTom]

Sweet! Have fun ahaha

[@glennsak]

Micro 4/3 has plenty of "depth-of-field." What you mean is that Micro 4/3 doesn't have shallow depth-of-field.

[@saskelee]

so whhen will you a bts of your set up?

[@WhatAboutTom]

Not sure aha. It's really basic. Maybe I'll make a video about it in the future

[@saskelee]

@@WhatAboutTom lol doesn't matter. what is basic to you might be much to someone else. talk about your equipments, your process your props your background set up etc. your editing process how your save file. from plan to process to execution you can make a ten minute video for here.

[@alejandroromerodiaz8503]

Next video: Five reasons for choose 645, 6x6 and 6x7 over full frame or "35mm" LoL

[@WhatAboutTom]

Ahahaha maybe not. I might just stop here lol

[@bdotvisualz7461]

soooo you're telling me that you actually think canon auto focus is better than sony's??? lol

[@nicoinfifine7797]

Hi,I am a Product promoter of Fifine Technology. I have sent you an email but your email account that I tried to reach does not exist :(

[@WhatAboutTom]

Hey there! I recently deleted that email address, very sorry! Please contact me at [e-mail] thanks!

[@GFClocked]

I just watched your own video where you said 4/3 is great and all. And now you're contradicting yourself. You kept touting how adapters are great and didn't say any disadvantages, if I was to look only on that video alone I'd feel ripped off. I don't think it's genuine to only talk about all the great parts and hail the speed boosters and adapters as the holy grail without even 1 word mention that AF is not gonna work etc

[@WhatAboutTom]

There are good and bad sides to both. One video is specifically about the upsides of micro four thirds, the other is talking about the upsides of full frame. Why would I mention the downsides of MFT in a video about the upsides of MFT?

[@thatsreallyamoon]

Long story short, full frame cameras for the price have dogshit video features. For $1000, the LUMIX G9 (a stills-flagship of Panasonic) can do internal 4k60 8 bit or 4k30 422 10 bit using the entire micro 4/3 sensor. You will not find this kind of oversampling and quit frankly, reliable video in anything from full frame at that price. Yes the G9 has video record limits; but that is not because of heat, it's because of decisions made by Panasonic to give the GH5 a good place. But you can always just press the record buttons again at 30 mins, and continue your video. Full frame sensors cannot handle the heat; not at $1000. This is why micro 4/3 is so important for video work. Some bodies like that LUMIX, and the $1300 Blackmagic 4K blow larger sensors out of the water in sheer video features. Can they compete in low light? Not really. But can a $1000 new full frame camera do 10 bit 4k30, or 12 bit 4k30 RAW? Nah. Crazy considering the Blackmagic 4k includes the excellent $300 Resolve license, leaving the camera to only cost $900. Spend it on batteries lol.

[@vitaliikharkovchuk6384]

wow, that was actually funny. just a moment ago, i watched the video of you telling, why to pick mft over FF%))) it´s not really counterargument, because you used same argument´s as before, but upside down. i have to correct you on quite few things. 1.)first of all, if sensor has same megapixels, on twice as big sensor(4x the area btw), then they gona be 2x as big, so100% bigger, not "50% bigger" 2.)Sony a7s i/ii, better at low light shooting, not because they have bigger pixels, but because they are specifically designed for low light schooting. if bigger pixels would make a difference we would get best dynamic range/color range on a7sii @iso100. yet, it is significantly worse than any other ff camera. mainly because of native(base) iso - a7ii has base iso of 1600(compared to most FF iso64/100) which makes it excelent low light camera, but sacrifice color and dynamic range. actually it only get as good as mft in those two at low iso. now panasonic gh5sii has two native/base iso - 400, and 2500, which gives it impressive dynamic range and tonal range, and, even quite good noise performance compared to FF. 3)equivalency is equivalency for gods sake. stop saying that FF cameras are better in low light. it´s completely the opposite!!! ITS A FREAKING SHOUTOUT!!!!! why do i hear every time story like this - "yes, you can achive same picture on mft and ff, you have to take crop factor into account, and shoot FF at double the f-stop. but FF is still better, because the sensor is bigger, it gathers more light in low light situations" here is a test for you. let´s say, you need that contextual blur, and you shoot a video @60frames, f5.6 in ok lit room let´s say iso 1600?. what settings will you pick on mft and what on FF? FF f5.6 1/60s ISO1600 MFT f2.8 1/60s ISO400 now compare the iso400 on mft to iso1600 on FF which gona do better? in noise? tonal range? dynamic range? just any mft camera will bea at least as good/even better that any ff. compare any iso or DR curve, and you gonna see less difference than 2 stops. so basically it´s down to lens ff camera´s are better, because they have much faster lenses. well you tested it by yourself. put sigma 18-35 f1.8 on speed booster, and you´ll gonna get f1.2-3ish mft lens, which compares to f2.4-5 FF zoom? so not only you get less noise, but also faster zoom lens for low light - anything above f2.0 and iso 400 you get absolutely/better equivalent in mft world. so plz explain which low light advantage are people speaking of? and mft are bad at good light. because they are mostly designed to perform in low light(base iso 200, which is equivalent to iso800 on FF) to keep up with ff cameras, they perform poorly on dr/color side and there is no workaround, unlike with low light. _________________________________________________ except for that, you have all good points. thank you for the review.:)

[@WhatAboutTom]

Pixel size definitely plays a role in low light performance. You're right, the pixels ARE designed for low light. One of the main design choices being the size of them. All in all, everything in this video kind of plays a role together with each other. Rewatch it a few times, maybe you'll be able to pickup what I'm trying to put down lol. Remember, I'm an MFT user, I don't plan on switching. This video is just about info, not my preferences

[@vitaliikharkovchuk6384]

@@WhatAboutTom, i absolutely get, what you are trying to tell. yet still you end up saying same stuff as all youtubers - bigger sensor, better low light performance. and as mft user, you actually could have seen the comparison and do the math for yourself. i´m not empathising on mft, in my opinion, you can achieve the same result with any sensor size so someone should finally have balls to take a step aside and bring this point up because it´s not just good enough. at least not in the areas, most youtubers state it is. and since you have both kit´s to test, you could go for live side by side comparison, how to achieve the same picture in low light, and what real drawbacks there are.

[@vitaliikharkovchuk6384]

@@WhatAboutTom and aboutpixel size affecting noise performance it´s also a bit mid thing. it´s true, that you get a cleaner signal by having bigger pixels. but it´s also true that you get much less noise by downsampling higher mp count. any higher mp count FF beats a7sii in noise by print and downsampling. and you can actually design high pm and high noise - i think it was pentax k5ii(aps-c), which had 24mp and same high iso noise performance as Nikon D800/D810(have to search it up). so, in my opinion, it´s more about readout speed. fewer megapixels are faster to read, and need less energy, and since those are specially designed video cameras you just need 4k/8k to sustain, so no need for a high megapixel count and investment goes in fast and efficient readout speed at higher frame rate without overheating. but there are many rumours in the pixels size vs sensor area fight, and everyone comes from a dedicated electronics engineer(that´s main problem about any hobby photographer%)) so make yourself your own picture, from the data i read and compare - like noise ration on high mp sensors, vs low mp sensors - high mp have definitely, a nonlinear advantage with much less noise vs sensors with bigger but fewer pixels.