BIG vs SMALL sensors in the real world...

[@JamesPopsysPhoto]

The first 1000 people to use the link will get a free trial of Skillshare Premium Membership: skl.sh/jamespopsys04211 Lawn mower was worth the wait - struggling with straight lines though...

[@Ruffian_Xion]

Just adjust it in post :)

[@mikejankowski6321]

@@Ruffian_Xion You beat me to it!

[@alimcri]

Isn't showing the zooms in comparison an option? Am I really supposed to notice the difference in noise between two photos merged into one video on a phone screen? I won't even notice the difference between these photos, even if you use a 5-year-old phone instead of a 4/3 micro camera. The video has no value; it isn't even worth the time I spent writing this comment."

[@MO-hq4iz]

Pixel density doesn't impact noise, the total light gathered impacts the signal-to-noise ratio SNR. You are thinking of videos only, but this depends on how the sensor downsizes to the video resolution. For stills, the pixel density has no bearing on noise.

[@tankerbruja]

Me every time James apologizes for not being outdoors: “Wow, my day ruined, I only watch for the adventurous backgrounds. Nothing to do with the charming, beardy man in front of the camera giving me good advice on photography. I can’t believe he would do this again.”

[@Rachiec2009]

🤣

[@tonykennedy2344]

A rational and reasoned comparison on full frame vs crop sensor cameras on KZbin.. there is hope for this world after all!!

[@zarrow50]

everyone knows full frame is better than cropped

[@kennygo8300]

Being 60 years old, the weight matters a lot. Being that the MFT system costs half as much as the FF system, my bank account matters a LOT.

[@MrFirstdance2000]

Being that, neither you nor I (at 64), think we have a chance at a Nat Geo spread yet we can still wow most with our MFT pics, the weight of the tools we use and, my bank account, are what matter most! Good call sir :-)

[@allenoakley1799]

As a 62 year old amateur photographer with a bad rotator cuff I love the less weight advantage of my G9. Hardly ever use a tripod. I do miss the low light advantage of a full frame since I do some sports photography at night but with this hobby I'm very happy with my G9.

[@KevinOConnell00]

I have a bad shoulder as well, I just got a z50 with the 16-55 and the 50-250. The camera and two lenses weigh less than my 70-200 f2.8. Camera and lens quality have come so far that I am not wanting in anyway with this little guy!

[@UnboxMe]

Size Matters but more important weight matters too

[@chrispettipiere2492]

I agree but one thing I appreciate with m4/3 is that in a small shoulder bag I can carry 7 lens and a couple of camera bodys. My old canon rebel wouldn't even enter with just one lens, and the weight is reasonable.

[@ekevanderzee9538]

And focal distance / viewing angle matters.

[@lnz971]

i love how 4/3 photograph try to convince themselves lol... i had a G9 now i'm on a R5 its day and night, its more expensive but panasonic 4/3 is trash PURE TRASH

[@steveworthington930]

@@lnz971 Try useing your G9 in a church for instance, flash/tripod,s prohibited. This is where M4/3 is far superior, side by side, you coudn,t get the image, I can, better depth of field, superb IBIS,(worth 4/5 stop,s), think again.

[@lnz971]

@@steveworthington930 Are you Joking M4/3 in low light situation is far superior??? My R5 have a way better ibis ( r5 and lense are stabilized 8 stop ), Lenses are way sharper and have a better depth of field buddy than 4/3... let's not talk about the worst autofocus system ( panasonic ). You really don't know your subject man

[@nateeames6826]

THANK YOU for bringing up the fact that smaller sensors have a depth of field advantage when you want everything in focus. No one ever brings this up and I feel like it’s a HUGE benefit of smaller sensors. In fact most people bring up how full frame cameras have a shallow depth of field as a good thing because that means more bokeh. I certainly am usually trying to get more of the scene in focus, not less, and I think most photographers are the same. Too me, arguing about which sensor size is best is like arguing which focal length is best. 24mm isn’t inherently better than 85mm or vice versa. It entirely depends on what kind of photos you’re trying to take, and like everything in photography it’s a direct trade off between one capability and another. Great video!

[@johnsilver9676]

It is the same to me. I am not doing landscape but ordinary family pictures. I usually want the whole family in focus not only the left eye of one of the members. Consequently I am used to stop down my MFT a bit.

[@ge48421]

I would not call this an "advantage", because you can just stop down on a full frame lens. A 25mm MFT lens set to f/1.8 collects the same amount of light and has the same depth of field as a 50mm full frame lens set to f/3.5, simply because the entrance pupil has the same diameter. (25/1.8 = 13.8mm, 50/3.5 = 14.3mm). The advantage of full frame is that you can actually open up that entrance pupil to 27.8mm and collect almost 4 times the amount of light (losing depth of field in the process). To me the advantage of MFT is not having to carry lenses like the Lumix S Pro 24-70 F/2.8, which checks in a 935g (> 2 lbs). Or the Lumix S Pro 50mm f/1.4 which is even heavier (over double the weight of the Nikon 50mm AF-S f/1.4). Also, for some types of photography (e.g. travel or documentary photography) it's also an advantage that you don't draw nearly as much attention to yourself with a smaller camera and lens.

[@nateeames6826]

@@ge48421 while the two lenses and setting you reference do have the same aperture size and field of view and therefore let through the same amount of light, the MFT sensor needs 1/4 as much light to expose the same image compared to the full frame camera . So while in the example you gave both photos would have the same depth of field (and in one sense would be letting in the same light) the advantage of MFT is then that your shot is at a 4X faster shutter speed (maybe 1/125 instead of 1/30). Of course, a smaller sensors needs less light because it collects less information, so that’s an advantage of a full frame sensor (more info means it can have 4X the megapixel count and look the same, or it could have 4X bigger pixels and therefore more dynamic range/less noise, or do a bit of both). As I said earlier, everything in photography is a direct mathematical trade off. People have preferences on what trade offs are worth it for them, but there’s no one solution that’s definitively best. I like APSC because it’s a happy balance for me, but others will prefer other formats. To each their own!

[@johnsilver9676]

​@@ge48421 Again, if you need bigger depth of field you compensate the noise advantage of FF just because you don't need to step down as much. In case you need shallower depth of field the FF gives a clear advantage, of course. You only need to pay much more money and carry a lot of more wight. The same discussion is possible the opposite way round and blame the FF as a small sensor format against the Medium format sensors. All systems are compromises the question is what you like to give in and what you want to get in exchange.

[@buddyWalrus]

@@johnsilver9676 I think the op’s point is that he doesn’t want to carry/pay more for things that won’t be used. If the depth of field and noise on a crop sensor is enough for someone then the FF sensor would be a waste. With how good cameras have gotten in the past few years, no half decent photographer should have issues with DOF or low light with practically any system, barring the most extreme use cases.

[@alexbloom-davis4019]

Most people binge Netflix, but I can’t be the only one who binges James Popsys. Thank you for all the vids, am learning a lot!

[@markandannette]

No you are not the only person that binges James Popsys, entertaining and informative such fun to watch and wonder what analogy he will use next

[@DaveMcKeegan]

There is then another can of worms opened up when you consider equivalence. If both lenses are f2.8 lenses then the M4/3s is wide open and lenses usually perform worst at their extremes, whilst the full frame lens has been closed down by 2 stops which will likely produce sharper results. That then also goes someway to explaining the weight differences, if they had f5.6 zooms for full frame they would be around the same weight as f2.8 zooms for M4/3 Its all a giant headache when you start thinking about it all :D

[@froreyfire]

I don't know about your experiences with M4/3 lenses, but contrary to FF lenses they typically show (almost) their best performance wide open.

[@Dahrenhorst]

I'm not particularly a landscape photographer, but if I do landscapes I practically never do it at night and only rarely at dusk or dawn. I usually do my landscapes at daylight, preferably when there is nice weather. I hate cold and rain. Even if it is cloudy or foggy or even a bit drizzly, I never have the need to go over 400 ISO with my MFT (I use Olympus) at an aperture which allows for deep depth of field (in landscape I usually want that) while maintaining a short enough shutter speed to not blur the picture. In fact, most of my landscapes are shot with base ISO. I see a use for full frame camera when you are into astro-photography, specializing in low-light photography or in taking pictures of dark objects, or if you tend to crop from your pictures extensively. Since I do nothing of this, a full frame camera wouldn't benefit me.

[@miljomupp]

Sounds like many of us photographers would fit your description of what they do. And if there is a very occasional circumstance where mft has to struggle (very low light etc) then it is up to the photographer to use her/his skills and make the best of it!

[@orphanuprising]

This the the most comprehensive explanation of crop factor equivalence I've heard yet. Full frame isn't inherently cleaner, it just has more range. But sacrificing depth of field isn't always the best option, I find that for macro work especially, alot of times mft is better because I can gather the same amount of light, but double the depth of field.

[@nmcdoug]

You're not getting as much light though. You're just using more gain to reach the same ISO number. That's why there's more noise. You're amplifying both the signal and the noise but not improving the signal to noise ratio. You could get the same result on full frame by turning the ISO number up and the f-number down.

[@orphanuprising]

@@nmcdoug but when shooting macro, you're locked in to certain aperture values. Too open and good luck getting anything more than a sliver in focus. Too narrow and you get diffraction. Mft allows for greater depth of field without diffraction

[@nmcdoug]

@@orphanuprising I'm pretty sure if you compare say f11 on MFT with f22 on full frame you should get the same depth of field and diffraction.

[@orphanuprising]

@@nmcdoug I mean it depends on the lens, obviously but in my experience, and with my macro lenses, that's not the case. I can shoot f13 on my mft gear with little to no diffraction, and any more than f16 on my ff lens, its very soft.

[@nmcdoug]

@@orphanuprising That's strange, I can't think of a reason that would be happening. Are you comparing equivalent focal lengths?

[@stevebonn3463]

Thanks for this clear summary, James. I'd like to add that MFT cameras have much better IBIS, allowing for longer handheld images at night. Olympus's Hi-Res mode (maybe Panasonic's as well?) also increases the dynamic range. These partially compensate for MFTs low light ISO weakness, however, not so much when there are moving objects and you don't want a blur effect. For me, the price and size/weight of MFT cameras make them my generally preferred choice, but I could see experimenting with a larger sensor sometime in the future.

[@Michael-fw5ef]

Most computer monitors and phones aren't even 4K in 2022. So, since 4K = 8mp, I think any camera with 16 - 20mp or more is enough for 99% of today's applications.

[@HenrikoMagnifico]

Unless you want to crop, or use Super 35 mode on Sony full frame for extra range

[@thedavidbrother2]

Good points here. I have a pana 43 and sony FF setup myself. I would add one thing: If you mostly shoot jpgs and DON'T edit your photos alot, you'd be fine with MFT. If you shoot raw and edit your files extensively, the need for FF soon rises. In Lightroom I find the FF raw-files can handle so much more "beating" especially on the color side. Changing WB in post for example. Or changing the RGB-channels. Thanks for the video and cheers.

[@jalapenopoppers331]

Omg, thank you so much for a reasonable and (as far as I can tell) accurate discussion of equivalence! :D

[@CallMeChato]

A world renowned photographer, who will remain nameless, took a family portrait of us 20 some odd years ago with an Olympus 3 megapixel camera. The 11x17 print is grainy, colourful and it’s wonderful. He captured a very funny moment when my 2yr old son tried to bite our older daughter’s arm. A full frame camera would not have improved the picture. Just saying. James is a good photographer.

[@kemerthomson]

You have been perfectly clear, and this is the most sensible comparison between the two sensors I have encountered. It provides a compelling argument for the continued utility of M43 cameras: the lenses. I love my collection of lenses, mostly Panasonic/Leica, for their size/weight and overall optical qualities. I don’t see myself trying to replicate them for a larger sensor camera (even if I had the spare cash).

[@sue.Hoo123]

You succeeded! A really clear and easy to understand comparison between the two formats.

[@BizzleByron]

It's worth mentioning also at how ridiculously good some anti-noise software is nowadays.

[@mikejankowski6321]

Good point. How much of an issue the camera’s performance is depends on the ease of correction. If you’re going to work it in post anyway, it’s less of a differentiator.

[@markedwards4787]

Dx0pureraw (and others) eliminates all noise! for the sake of £100, you are potentially saving thousands by changing system.

[@forneverarrow]

Interesting video! I prefer the APS-C system because of the 3:2 aspect ratio and the better ISO handling than the MFT. It’s the best middle ground if you don’t need or can’t afford a full frame. Also i can use any EF lens on my canon aps-c.

[@mikelobdell2666]

Yes, you have to pick what suits your taste. I usually crop to at least 4/3 although there are certain photos that suit the wider aspect ratio. More often though I would be cropping away the extra width.

[@HB-oi6tp]

I really wish people would stop living in the myth that a larger sensor always gives you better results, because it doesn't. The main benefits of a larger sensor are lower noise at higher ISO's and more dynamic range. You can of course also get a higher resolution, but that will only be of benefit if you do large prints or if you tend to crop a lot. Aside from these things it's the lens(es) that matter the most for image quality.

[@alexandermedina9886]

I appreciate your comment so much! So many people I come across are full frame fanboys and don't understand that every camera have their own use. That is why I appreciate APSC and MFT, because they are more reasonable price and cheaper lens. Plus the focal length extends, and it is lightweight!

[@meta4101]

Low light, resolution, dynamic range, bokeh and price for equivalent lenses. Otherwise, no benefit.

[@lyndapassey2752]

As a hobbyist I have GX9 but I found your video fascinating. It was very useful and I learned a lot. I love your style and delivery. I’m not keen on tripods either. Thank you James.

[@bradleybunk6463]

James, you were very clear and pleasingly concise. You’re a gifted communicator.

[@markyg1964]

Love watching your stuff, just bought myself a G9 due to getting sick of carrying my FF gear about (weight) but I will be keeping it for low light situations, keep up the good work James

[@tommayo5778]

Having made the jump to full frame (s5) - this is really interesting to me. Like the technical background - and the practical implications - thanks James 👍

[@TheGotoGeek]

DxO Deep PRIME does some amazing things to the noise for µ4/3. It’s slow and ponderous to use, but the results are worth it.

[@markedwards4787]

Depends on your pc obviously.. it takes about 10 seconds to kill noise on my laptop. Awesome software.

[@davidellinsworth22]

One of the best explanations I've seen on this topic. 👍👍

[@PaprykowyMonarcha]

Thank you Mr. Gerard Butler of photography for a interesting comparison :)

[@johnadams3038]

If he drinks whiskey daily and experiences one stroke then he will look like Gerard Butler :)

[@seanbreslin5836]

I've got the S5 and G9 and a couple of lenses for each. I like both cameras and, as you say here, they serve different purposes at different times, but if I had to pick one it'd still be the G9 despite being older. It's still the best handling digital camera I've ever used.

[@christophkrull5660]

Amen sir! Im you grab the G9 it is a part of your body. Amazing ergonomics ans features. Ich love my G9 as well ans my S5, too.

[@AndySnap]

I've shot with Lumix MFT kit alongside full frame and APS-C DSLRs for years, and really there's so little difference in image quality, I've often had images from both systems mixed up in an edit from a shoot, so even I can't tell which is which. Sometimes the Lumix images are sharper, partly down to the depth of field thing going on, but also because the Lumix lenses are newer designs, optimised for a digital sensor, whereas quite a few DSLR lenses are still older optical designs for film resolution. But the biggest plus point of Lumix kit is I can't always be arsed lugging FF DSLR kit around on some days, on some jobs. Big win for MFT!

[@gregsilver]

I currently shoot with a 1" sensor on the Sony RX10 IV. I'm very pleased with the results. In fact, I've been able to take better pics than even I had with APS-C cameras. I was always nervous about going down to a smaller sensor but found I didn't need to sacrifice quality when shooting with a 1" sensor. Also software has really narrowed the gap when you can easily get rid of noise or boost resolution.

[@alangauld6079]

I use a 1inch sensor TZ100 for multi-day backpacking trips and in good light with lowish contrast it’s as good as my MFT. And HDR and pano mode make up for most of its other problems. But I do miss shallow DoF for closeups and it is much noisier in low light.

[@jeffgrischow1734]

Fabulous video! Very clear, informative and helpful. This has helped me a lot as I contemplate full frame. For now, I’ll stay with micro 4/3 because of the weight advantage and my use case (environmental portraiture). And I’m pretty happy with the shallow depth of field with the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and Panasonic-Leica 15mm f1.7. By the way, I love your channel, it’s one of my very favourites!

[@davewarren7693]

When i was sailing on a Viking river cruise with my Panasonic GX8, I found that image wise, it lacked nothing image wise because it along with an Olympus 12-100 and the incredible image stabilization, I could photograph in light levels that were impossible for my Nikon equipment. The GX8 has such incredible versatility that is unmatched in full frame. I would have had to carry a tripod for many of my shots for my Nikons. Plus what you see is what you get.

[@richardturner81]

That lawn mower looks ace 🤘🏻

[@JamesPopsysPhoto]

It's a thing of beauty! Well worth a day at home ;)

[@antonoat]

Before I listen to you I’m compelled to say I’ve spent years listening to many landscape photographers especially here on you tube saying the same thing that “gear doesn’t matter and it doesn’t matter what size the sensor is” interestingly, now, many of these same people are now using Fuji gfx or similar with larger sensors! Lol. In reality there are differences, pixel size (and not necessarily total resolution) makes a very big difference especially re noise characteristics, etc, etc.

[@TimGreig]

As indeed James now has

[@lukemckenna]

This was immensely helpful to me. I've been wondering about the difference for years watching you now and just never looked into it in detail. Thanks for putting so much detail into this.

[@Ewencraig]

Awesome video James, really appreciate the knowledge shared there. Have a great weekend 😁

[@hVF8KZuQPeCc8u]

Great video, very helpful. I own the G9 which is a fantastic camera. Wish I had one of the Lumix full frame versions though, like you. One thing I have found though is something like Topaz DeNoise (and many other similar apps) can really dial down the low light noise from my G9. Yes, it might be a pain to have to do that but batch processing is available and it really works well. Pros are likely to have a FF camera in their arsenal but those of us who can’t afford it or don’t have stronger bodies to carry them around do have other alternatives.

[@suew2581]

Really interesting, thank you for this. Even if I do not fully understand every technical detail, your explanations are more than clear enough so I get the gist and it is helpful stuff.

[@kostyafedot551]

Great comparison. Such noise at ISO1600 with "latest" M43 sensor. Might be still OK for very low ISO, but it is hardly any practical in more than just an landscapes use.

[@jimludwick]

James: Somehow this popped up front page and I enjoyed your information immensely. I'm a. big G9 user and now I know why I like it so much in comparison to the big boys. Thanks for this one video especially. A loyal subscriber, Jim

[@cecilhudgins6569]

Excellent explanation James. Thank you for the specifics of the two formats and cameras.

[@andretim75]

you forgot to mention one very simple solution for the "landscape-situation" in dim light ---- a tripod !!! With this item the FF camera can be used with quite low ISO numbers and also open aperture and will be superior to the m4/3 system!

[@Heart0rHead]

Fantastic thing to carry

[@bradleyanderson247]

Good video! I think something that often gets overlooked by gear nerds (I'll include myself in that category) is that regardless of brand or format, we have dang good gear these days. It's not too long ago that many of us were awed by 6 - 8mp cameras that technically can't compare with current equipment. Yet they produced some beautiful photos. And as an old codger I can recall shooting ASA (in the US ISO was once called ASA) 25, 50, 64 film. 35mm film at ISOs of even 400 could get pretty darn grainy even at relatively small print sizes. And how did anyone ever take a good action sports photo without state of the art AF?

[@sidekickbob7227]

Late reply, but you wrote an interesting comment. Yes, the gear today is excellent, and the choices to be made is endless. I often find the pictures made by the top notch equipment too crisp and clear. In many situations it's preferable, but for some styles of pictures they lack the needed mood. I still love my old 5Dmk2, and it suits me well for my "kind of artistic" way of shooting. It's not great, but good enough. I'm a gear nerd myself, but I don't care about new stuff. Good old manual lenses are my hunting ground. Regarding sport photos with manual lenses, the photographer must predict the path of movement, and pre set everything for the spot where the photos are taken. Then spray and pray. The % of keepers are of course low.

[@paulbirch7635]

This is exactly why I have stuck with 4/3 and micro4/3 since about 2005. Granted I bought my first SLR at the age of 15 and money for lenses was tight... but the 4/3 ecosystem complemented my outdoors and hiking lifestyle and that is why I have stayed. The size/weight advantage is worth so much more when you are on a week long hike and the nearest fire road is 25 km away... Thank you for a balanced comparison. Also, the IBIS on a camera with a smaller sensor tends to perform better and that alone may offset image degradation due to noise, depending on subject and conditions of course.

[@TB-up4xi]

3:35 - It's not as if you always get more "height" shooting landscape 4:3 vs 3:2 - you could equally chose the same height to frame and have less width, i.e you can have exactly the same amount of ground and sky but a narrower picture ....OR....... you can shoot the same width and get more vertical in the frame it's really up to you. And also every camera m4/3 camera I have owned (since EM5 orginal) has the option to shoot 3:2 in jpeg....BUT......... it will still meter in 4:3! as it's converting the full 4:3 raw in camera to produce the jpeg.

[@25myma]

Appreciate these reviews in a time when sony and canon are pushing to make FF look like a must.. after they both failed with their aps-c lineups; basically they were slapped in the face by fuji and even MFT, so now theyre selling sensors by the squate foot to prove their superiority. People should understand what's real and what is pure marketing.

[@NicJohnson]

Wonderful video with a very reasonable explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of sensor sizes. I have a fairly different use case, but as a street photographer camera size and a light pack are still very important. The depth of field advantage of a m4/3 or smaller sensor is also a very big advantage for something like street photography. Great work.

[@jonathanjames3453]

Very helpful, thank you. I'm considering switching from full frame to micro four thirds because I'm missing shots by not carrying the very heavy long zoom. This has helped me think about key aspects of the decision.

[@0009reserva]

Switch! Because now with DxO and other the m43 system reduced the distance between the photographic results. You can shoot with 6400-12800 ISO and use noise reduction.

[@davidsilva8695]

You explained things very well and clearly. Keep on keeping on!

[@gertsy2000]

Well done you've hit the 'equivalency' nail on the head. There are so many photographic "experts" out there who just don't get it. My view is the issue comes from the incorrect and confusing terms "Full frame" and "Crop frame". APSC, 35mm, Medium format, are much more accurate thanks.

[@TheDIYFilmmaker]

Very clear James, thank you for being so honest. Cheers!

[@GCD8]

I just love you videos, James. They are quirky, funny BUT full of information. I ahve to assume that it is the You Tube experience that removes any possibility of the average moretal being able to see the differiences that you highlight. Maybe, we are supposed to pause your video and scritinize the picture. If so please tell us, I love your dialogue so just continue to listen to what you say. Also, if you were to highlight the areas that show the terrible noise, for example, that you were referring to, it would be fabulously beneficial as a learning tool.

[@chrisbrown6432]

Thanks James for a very clear explanation of the two sensors camera systems and comparison.

[@OttoVonRaz]

I find that I end up adding some noise to my Lumix files when I shoot creative portraits. The G9 sensor is so good at high ISO. Great video!

[@pankist]

James! As usual - nice, insightful, and funny! Keep going n shooting! Thanks!

[@Rocodil]

I liked this video a lot. Most people do not understand this M43 - full frame ‘game’ correctly. It is all true what you said. One way to overcome the costs of the extra full frame camera, is to buy faster lenses. The challenge though is that they may not be available. Some camera brands go this direction: e.g Fujifilm offer the 50 mm f1.0. What I am sometimes asking myself is, if the autofocus capabilities are connected to the sensor size. The cameras with the best capabilities in this area are Sony and Canon for with their full frame cameras.

[@koolkutz7]

Some great points here James, especially regarding Equivalence. The other good point well made was with regards to lens size/weight. That's where the differences really become obvious in most cases.

[@samokham]

Hello. I also use both systems (Oly and Sony) and I like them both. Both has advantages and disadvantages. There is never mentioned dynamic range difference. And in most cases IBES, high res. results and read out speed is on MFT side.

[@dansimpson9214]

ive been watching your videos for a while now and you inspired me to get a G9 and i love it. i just wanted to say keep up the greats vids

[@brianmckeever5280]

1) Congrats on the new mower! 2) Nice information! Something for the pixel badgers to digest!

[@erincoenegrachts2788]

You are so my favourite KZbinr at the moment!

[@tiggerable]

Thanks for the comparison! I find the added 2kg for a fullframe kit and the more bulky packing size a big hassle when motorcycling. Having the same lenses for my GH5 it's about a 2.4kg haul but packs away quite nicely even in a tank bag. So, with that in mind, I'll not soon go over to FF. I do however miss the low light capabilities but as said earlier the tradeoff is too big. Thanks James!

[@johnsmith-vz3vr]

7:24 recall the equation for depth of field. and say what you think is f number, there are equations for that too

[@letni9506]

I don't really shoot in low light and I only really do birds and landscapes. So for me m43 hits the spot. I've even had nice portrait shots with a longer zoom. I think full frame really shines when you have the likes of the GM lenses and unfortunately I can't stretch to those. When you use the slow variable aperture lenses like some of the canon ones I can't help feeling that you aren't gaining much. I'm not trying to say m43 is the best choice but for me it's enough and it's affordable.

[@NoMastersNoMistress]

I've personally found that FT just owns everything else for daytime telephoto work, especially Olympus lenses, for size (small!), sharpness, and focus speed, especially in event shooting outdoors.

[@balboa0621]

I don't know why Panasonic hasn't sponsored you. You make the most professional videos covering m43 and lumix cameras.

[@peternissen40]

Thanks for a good angle on the difference between full frame and crop sensor camera. Especially size and weight difference incl. lense, is something that is typically overlooked.

[@OttosTheName]

A couple Lumix embassadors I sometimes watch on KZbin always say that the low light performance on paper might be worse, but the smaller Micro Four Thirds sensors often have such amazing stabilization that they can get sharp handheld shots at a quarter of a second so it doens't matter much. Personally I use APSC and I don't mind Noise one bit, I almost exclusively shoot in Black and White and noise adds character if you ask me.

[@55whiplash]

That's my experience, I always end up using my M4/3 over my full frame Sony A7c, which I do enjoy, but only for photos.

[@DerSystematiker]

All well said. I knew all this before I "upgraded" to full frame - especially the fact that you only get better noise levels when you are working at the limit and you can't open the aperture any further. I still did upgrade and in many scenarios it does not chnage a thing regarding the output. But when you need it it's great. Also I just like working with the same "specs" as in the old 35mm film days. p.s. 1.3kg for a 70 - 200 F4??? The Canon RF version comes in at half the weight and quality wise it's perfect.

[@pauljack174]

Great video as usual. You should also do a review on that lawn mower, I'm thinking of switching from Full size petrol to micro two batteries.

[@davidharle8794]

made complete sense to me anyway. Sticking with m4/3 personally, purely because of weight.

[@noenken]

10:46 I mean, equivalent to m4/3 12-35 would be 24-70 f/5.6, right? So what does that weigh? ;)

[@pelanth]

As far as full frame weight goes, if you are willing to sacrifice some F-Stop so its even more equivalent to M4/3 you can get a fairly light lens. I use the 24-200 on my Z6 and it does pretty well and weighs 570 grams. That Lumix 70-200 F4 weighs as much as many F2.8s.

[@thorstenbrand4803]

What are you talking about? the sony 70-200 weight 1.48 kg, the canon 1.31 kg. And the Nikon has f 6.3 at the long end. This lens has to be compaird wit the lumix 35-100 f4-5,6 with 135g and a price of 190 €

[@pelanth]

@@thorstenbrand4803 yes, the 2.8 versions of the sony weighs that much and I was talking about full frame only. Please carefully read before replying and be sure you understand the intent. Happy to have a civil discourse. Have a good day.

[@thorstenbrand4803]

@@pelanth you said that the Nikon lens is more equivalent to mft but its not. There is a big difference between 135 g and 570 g.

[@pelanth]

@@thorstenbrand4803 For equivalence to the Nikon 24-200 on micro four thirds you would need a 12-100 F2-F3.1 lens. The Olympus 12-100 is F4 so it doesn't meet that criteria and is 561 grams. So it's sort of close. The main point I was trying to make was that comparing a Lumix full frame lens doesn't make as much sense since they make the heavies full frame lenses. I absolutely think a micro four thirds with light lenses is a great choice in good light for a lightweight option. I have thought about doing that myself, but when all things are equal to get the same amount of noise etc., both systems can end up very close to the same weight. Also, not trying to knock the Lumix lenses, I'm sure they are great, just not as light as their siblings for other full frame mirrorless systems.

[@Heart0rHead]

8:30 until you are out of low aperture range on m43 :) plus wider aperture equals softer image, fast lenses are more expensive

[@quazisanjeed6395]

Thank you for the video. I'm done with APS-C bodies already, let alone MFTs. Now shooting with FF and APS-H.

[@WhoIsSerafin]

Brilliant! Every person who asks what camera should I get should see this video

[@MrTobamory]

Great review James and Spot on. Last year before the dreaded lurgy hit us, i ran an A7R3 with all the GM glass, and yes it was nice to have and yes i could crop in massively when shooting sports etc, however weight was the issue, i started to not take it out with me, which is no use to anybody, i always reached for my G9 or OM10 mk3 as the results were as good or close as i wanted. I sold it all kept the M4/3 and everythings cool. Will i buy a FF again, maybe but unless i want to take pictures of my feet in the bedroom i wont make this decision till lockdowns fully off. My honest view of FF and the main bugbear with Mirrorless full frames is the sensors are like Dysons vacs, every time i went out i had to check it and do the customary Visible dust swab, something ive yet to do with my M4/3. Keep up the good work, and keep ya eyes out for the dreaded dust gremlins :). I dare to think what MF would be like ughhhhh

[@timothylinn]

I appreciate your nuanced approach to a topic that many m43 shooters aren’t able to address without trying to spin the facts a little. That said, your 70-200 F4 needs to go on a diet. The Canon RF 70-200 F4 is 695g, almost half the weight of your 70-200 F4 monster and therefore much closer in weight to your F5.6 equivalent m43 zoom.

[@sirlaotse]

This comparison was spot on, showing what really matters, not that much of pixel peeping for 10 perfect of people

[@chrisxwolverine]

Congratulations on the new Lawnmover :-) ... happy Lawning days ahead!

[@The_Hero_Is_Back]

Epic explanation. Thanks, James.

[@johnyutzey6504]

I am quite grateful to you for this video. Now, instead of trying to explain the differences between M43 and FF (especially given the current FF mania) to those who inquire (ne challenge) regarding the differences between the formats, I can just refer them to this video. Well done, laddie!

[@elzafir]

I often encounters full frame photographers around me who never even considered a 70-200mm lens, either the f4 or f2.8, due to them not seeing themselves lugging the behemoth around. A Lumix G9 II with a 35-100mm f/2.8 (70-200mm f/5.6 FFEQ) is bang on 1kg (less if you chose the OM-1). Although a mere 400g less than an A7 IV + 70-200mm f/4 combo, but if you carry other lenses in your bag, the differences add up quick.

[@richardpenhardt6100]

excellent episode on sensors and their characteristics. thank you

[@bencushwa8902]

As a sports photographer, I'll take a good 300mm lens on an APS-C body over a 400mm lens on on a full frame body any day of the week. The savings in weight and money is astounding. Couple that 300mm lens on an APS-C body with a 70-200 on a full frame body, and I get a hugely flexible kit without breaking the bank, or my back. Cameras are just tools. Use the one(s) that best fits your job(s). Excellent video as always. Hope the lawnmower works out.

[@rec11fdc]

Excellent video, but the equivalences on depth of field and aperture between ff and micro4/3 are due to field of view, not the aperture itself. For example, say that you're shooting a 50mm lens on both cameras. On the micro43 one because of the sensor size, you'd have an equivalent of a 100mm lens attached to it. If you shoot both at say f2 from the same distance, you'd obtain the exact same depth of field, but the field of view on the micro43 would be much tighter. So, if you wanted the same field of view, you'd have to double the distance with your subject with the micro43 camera. This is, in practise what causes the difference in the depth of field, the fact that you're always at double the distance from your subject when comparing to a ff sensor.

[@Americanpatriot7000]

Very articulate on a subject I’ve wondered about. Thanks.

[@iammarcin]

Another great video. I too love shooting with my G9, just wish it was able to produce what my full frame Canon can, any time of day.

[@VynZography]

What a great explanation! So many people STILL don't understand equivilance.

[@SirMo]

This is honestly the best comparison between the two systems. So often folks ignore the weight difference and only concentrate on noise. I own both FF and m4/3 and for 95% of shooting I do m4/3 for me personally offers a better balance.

[@weisserth]

The resolution benefit of larger sensors is starting to crumble with things like super resolution AI algorithms that upscale images to much higher resolutions for printing without obvious artifacts or loss in detail.

[@marcelocampoamor4761]

The AI's algorithms can only help with larger prints to maintain details , but can not create more data.

[@souptec]

The G9 ISO default is 200 but can be extended to 100 via menu and or firmware upgrade. The G9 can also shoot in 16:9, 3:2, 4:3 or 1:1. although you will lose some pixel doing so in some settings.

[@clarkejones8090]

Very well explained, James. Thank you.

[@jimslens]

Very, very good on the MFT vs Full Frame equivalence issue. Thanks, James.

[@MonsieurFromLondon]

This is such a technical field, so many combinations, this is what makes photography an art and a science! I like the new set up and am glad the plugs are now covered ;) - was gonna ask if you were on your knees but you answered at the end haha!

[@ceaabe]

I'm still happy with my mFT gear. Don't need any Full Frame stuff.

[@Matwiej19]

As usual, spot on video:)

[@Reyfox1]

I've waited for this video. I use the G9. Went to Uganda with only 3 lenses and of course, had to carry everything on my back. After 10 days, every little bit in weight reduction is a blessing. But also the video capabilities of the camera are stellar. I don't do a lot of low light shooting, do bike ride a lot, and we travel. I've thought, if the G9 dies, what would I replace it with. The S5 likely, but still, the cost of getting a G9 would be less and since I have lenses for it, well... Thanks for an honest review.

[@paulcollingridge8387]

Very clear, great response to those who wave numbers without context