Micro Four Thirds Does what Full Frame Doesn't

In this video I wanted to talk about the benefits to depth of field that a micro four thirds camera brings over a full frame camera.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @chrisbaitsonphoto
• Buy Me A Coffee:
www.buymeacoff...
• My Camera Gear:
www.amazon.co....
•Follow Me On Instagram:
/ chrispikz
• Buy my PRESETS here:
www.etsy.com/u...
• Buy My PRINTS here:
www.redbubble....
•About me:
My name is Chris and I am a landscape photographer from East Yorkshire focussing on coastal long exposures using my micro four thirds Olympus cameras.
My music is provided my Audiio, sign up below and use code SAVE70 to earn 70% off of your first 12 month subscription:
audiio.com/par...
#microfourthids #landscapephotography #cameras

[@jthorn5782]

Love the snarky attitude! Hilarious video and great photos 👍🏼

[@ralphmckenzie8802]

I started out working for a Portrait photographer in 1972 using Mamiya Studio and 35mm SLR cameras. We used a variety of lenses and "Bokeh" was never a consideration. Depth of field and sharp focus were major considerations. As was good light. Bokeh is a sales and marketing mantra that many supposed modern KZbin photographers prize over everything else when taking photos. As others here have said, every tool has its place but the slavish pandering to the idea that good photos must have blurry backgrounds is a nonsensical idea. We don't live in a vacuum - we live in an environment and it's the context of that environment that really tells us more about the images we view or take. Very nice images by the way - I wish I still lived in a coastal area, always so much of interest to take photos of. Keep up the good work.

[@icedragon769]

The difference is that in 1972, the primary role of photographers was documentarian, not artistic. A photo was good if it captured the subject in focus and exposed it well. Tons of people were doing photography as art but that wasn't what cameras were bought and sold for. In 2024, if you want to document something, you use a cell phone camera, and everything is sharp and in focus and well exposed for free. Having a sharp, competent photo is not interesting anymore. Now what make the work of A Photographer stand out from every schmuck is the fact that their photos are taken with big lenses that render lots of bokeh. That doesn't mean that bokeh is or ought to be a goal in itself worth pursuing, but it makes sense that noob discourse starts there because it is the one defining feature that makes a photographer's portfolio stand out from 6.18 billion people's smartphone galleries.

[@cristibaluta]

Of course you don't search for bokeh in a studio, and you already had it by default on mf, we that shoot in nature we want f1

[@simonatterbury]

Another great video and MFT DOF is perfect for cityscapes too, don't like burry buildings.

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

Thanks Simon, I'll have to try cityscapes at some point. I just don't trust the city I live in.

[@philiptownsend4026]

I've been seeing lately that street photography has become more difficult and dangerous with nasty confrontation to be expected. Society has changed.

[@benejpocock]

6:03 - “Something you can’t do on full frame, despite full frame being, you know, the dogs” Did you plan on having a dog run through the background at that exact point?! 😂

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

Timing was perfect 😂

[@TigerPaw193]

I agree that it was perfect timing. But notice that Chris didn't actually answer the question you asked about intentionality. Great directors don't always reveal every one of their secrets now, do they?

[@philiptownsend4026]

I noticed that 🐕too. Very timely.

[@gregfeeler6910]

Brilliant! Very funny and yet spot on commentary. You did a great job of demonstrating how FF shallow DOF is NOT a universally great thing, and how well the MFT system works for capturing stunning landscapes. Also, I very much like your photography, Chris.

[@NJM1948]

Correct, but nobody using a FF camera with a F1.8 lens would ever dream of using that wide an aperture for landscape!! They would stop down to around F8 to get the full shot in focus - I must have missed the point, but not sure why this is an issue?

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

@NJM1948 the point is the f1.8 argument as a whole. You’re right, nobody in the right mind is using that for landscapes yet when the FF argument arises it’s the only aperture mentioned.

[@mitchellwnorowski6747]

Bokeh, Shmokeh ! I often argue the human eye doesn't see with bokeh. As soon as we change focus it's in focus. I agree with you completely. I shoot Florida watetfowl and i want the bird and the habitat in focus !

[@johnpouw3352]

Interesting point, with respect though the human eye does see with 'bokeh' - if your eye focuses on something at a relatively close distance, anything for that matter, the background or things you are not focusing on do actually blur out. It's just that we don't really register it because it is happening al the time. Imagine trying to read a book where everything behind it was in focus as well. The obvious exception is when we are out looking at landscapes, walking down the street, that kind of thing. More things are in focus but I would argue that anything in the periphery of our vision even in that situation is not 'sharp'. Your comment definitely made me think though :)

[@philippeleblanc4345]

Bonjour de France , sur les bords de la Méditerranée à Cassis. Je suis très content de suivre ta chaîne KZbin ( avec la traduction automatique). Et bravo pour la défense du micro 4/3. 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

Merci Philippe!

[@FieldingSmith]

Definitely gave me a chuckle. I also found the extra DoF helpful when I was still in the navy, shooting indoor ceremonies and events with a flash. Could still shoot at wider apertures and get a subject fully in focus while using less flash power, so faster recycle times.

[@MurphyGreg]

Brilliant content, Chris. Your DOF is only matched by your Depth Of Knowledge 😎. Cheers bro 👍

[@andrewhumphrys5548]

I agree, I have shot crop sensor, full frame and micro 4/3. I get good Bokeh with my Olympus EM1 mk2 and mk3. Not turning back now. Great depth when required.

[@loggoggles]

Cheap 50/1.8 loves beach, sand and wind. It loves it that much, so it takes part of that beach inside. As a bonus it develops nice grinding sound each time focus ring is turned.

[@chrishowell5718]

Good stuff. I mostly shoot landscapes and what you might term 'opportunistic wildlife', and to me M4/3 delivers a triple whammy of small, portable cameras/lenses, deep depth of field which still letting some light in, and gear that I can afford to take into the places where I want to take photographs. I've camped at 3000 feet with a 100-400mm lens that I took just in case I saw an opportunity to use it, whereas I couldn't afford to own a full-frame equivalent, and if I did getting it to even half that elevation would take over the logistics of the trip. Just about the only things I want shallow depth of field for is portaraits and macro/close up shots of flora and fungi. For the latter, achieving shallow depth of field has never been an issue, and for the former, the gods pf Olympus have gifted us the 45mm f1.8, which has basically identical bokeh to a full-frame nifty fifty with a more sympathetic focal length for portraits and in a size that will fit into the elasticated film canister holder of the camera bag of my youth. If the cost of entry into photography as a hobby was genuinely a £2500 full frame camera plus lenses, I'm not sure I could afford to do it, or at least to take cameras to the places I want to shoot. There have always been gear snobs who want to gatekeep and use their expensive cameras as status symbols. Back in the day, there was the medium-format crowd who looked down on 35mm.

[@kamranhkhan]

Watched the whole video, no skips. Thoroughly enjoyed your content. From someone who comes from Canon / Sony Full frame cameras to Lumix / Olympus kit, i couldn't agree more with you.

[@johnpouw3352]

To be fair (and I know the video was largely tongue in cheek), when you were doing video at F1.8 on the FF camera, it worked and looked great. The background was blurred, less distraction and we were focused on you, drawn in to what you were saying - that is the point of bokeh, removing distraction. That being said, in total agreement that for 80% of landscapes DOF is what you want and MFT (or a full frame camera at F11+) definitely works in that regard. It basically depends on the scenario, but any camera can give you the look you want if you use it properly and know the settings required and have a lens capable of the look you are going for. Entertaining video as always and excellent images :) John Pouw NZ

[@marcus3d]

Exactly. But people here in the comments clearly don't get that Chris is joking, but they actually think that the restrictive DoF of m43 is a benefit of m43. In reality there's obviously no problem stopping down the aperture 2 EV on the FF.

[@peterosborne9802]

Good video chris, don't forget the full frame brigade will argue that you can foto stack then go into lightroom and spend all day editing it and take it into this program and then into that program and then back into lightroom before exporting it into social media 😂. Yer right they can keep that. Long live micro four thirds. 😂

[@jpsteiner2]

Great humor. Tony Northrup's not going to like you. 😂

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

Ugh, too many people take everything he says as gospel. Chelsea, however.... I'd listen to intently.

[@patrickhopkinson1851]

@@ChrisBaitsonPhoto yes but would you remember anything she said?

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

@@patrickhopkinson1851 I'd like to say yes but she's distracting...

[@patrickhopkinson1851]

@@ChrisBaitsonPhoto 🤣

[@jamesmlodynia8757]

Very good video, I have been using full frame, APSC and Micro 4/3 for several years. Each sensor size has its place in a photographers tool box. The thing is knowing when is at its best and depth of field is a big part of the equation. People will say that full frame cameras are best for high iso and low light, also depth of field and the fact of true focal lengths since there is no crop factor. Well as you stated for some types of photography you want a great deal of the photo in focus and a crop sensor makes it easier to achieve. Today man crop sensor lens has an aperture of 1.2 and the lens will be smaller and cheaper than any f1.2 full frame lens. When I photographed events I used a Olympus Om1 MKII &MKIII with a 7--14mm f2.8 this was the camera and lens that I used to take photos of the inside and outside of the venues that I was photographing events at, I also use the 4/3 as my travel setup, the compact size allows me to pack two cameras and a variety of glass when I fly.

[@marcus3d]

Why would you compare a m43 f/1.2 to a FF f/1.2? Those are completely different, they produce completely different images. If you want the same image (including the same brightness, DoF, and FoV, and about the same amount of image noise) as a m43 25mm f/1.2 on FF you need 50mm f/2.4 at 4x ISO. That's what you should compare it to. Chris obviously knows this, and is just joking in this video when he's saying that m43 can do it better (although m43 can be lighter, especially if you *only* need deep DoF, and can be cheaper too, sometimes).

[@jamesmlodynia8757]

@@marcus3d Every lens no matter the sensor size is different in its own way, I compared the two lens because you can get a F1.2 lens in 4/3 format , while the DOF will be different, the ability to photograph in very low light , the lens is much cheaper and not everyone does not need the limited DOF that a F 1.2 full frame lens gives, the price of a full frame F1.2 is beyond most people unless you get a cheap third party lens with manual focus. The only person that can make a full frame F1.2 work for them is a working Pro event photographer or a portrait photographer. I have a few F1.2 lens from Voightlander and Viltrox for my Fujifilm and Nikon ZF cameras and the 75 mm Viltrox on my XT5 at F1.2 is limited to photographing a single person, if the person is a woman holding a child the DOF is too shallow to get both in focus, so as I stated having a 1.2 option is great but it's use at F1.2 is limited.

[@marcus3d]

@@jamesmlodynia8757 It you don't need the FF f/1.2 then why are you including that in the comparison? Just compare a comparable lens instead. You're making zero sense.

[@jamesmlodynia8757]

@@marcus3d Can't help if you don't understand what I'm trying to say or the point I'm trying to make. Have a nice day.

[@marcus3d]

@@jamesmlodynia8757 Can't help if you don't understand why your comparison makes no sense. I've tried, but you can only lead a horse to water, not force it to drink.

[@SakaphotoGraphics]

Whenever I see products at a photo show where the products aren't completely in focus, I have to laugh that they have their vaunted slim DoF. I appreciate that there are moments for everything, so using the right tools for the job is important.

[@vermis8344]

"Essentially sticking two fingers up at full frame." Subscribed.

[@juliette-mansour]

Your videos are fantastic because your passion overall and your love for the craft is totally AUTHENTIC and uninhibited. I wish we were friends! Thank you.

[@patrickhopkinson1851]

Superb, Chris!

[@louiebodenstaff6772]

Long live micro four thirds!

[@sweden_ove2074]

❤ I love you Chris, for your arguments.

[@ggwildlife]

absolutey bang on Chris i love my m43 cameras and your photos were awesome.

[@patrickhopkinson1851]

I was using a Summilux-SL 50mm on an SL3 and found that if I stood close enough to the subject (a Mod on a scooter) to get the framing I wanted, even at f13 I still couldn’t get both his face and the windscreen on his bike in focus. At almost maximum aperture f1.6, it’s a case of eyes in focus but not nose and ears. In the days of film we struggled to get sufficient depth of field to make sure everything is in focus because of the trade off between aperture, shutter speed and sharpness due to camera shake. I know things have moved on with variable ISO but I don’t understand the obsession with blur.

[@keirwatson3570]

M43 gets two bonus points when used for macro too. (i) increased dof reduces need for focus stacking, (ii) The 2x crop means you get 2x larger image. Hence you get double the native maximum magnification, making several native lenses good semi-macros (e.g. panny 42.5mm f1.7 has a max mag of x0.2 making it x0.4 in ff terms)

[@maxhighstein]

I'm glad to see this video. I shoot portraits with mft, and am very happy the amount of blur I get with my 42.5mm Leica f1.2 Noctricon lens. It's not the sort of blur I see often now, where the subject looks like they're cut out from the background. I find that kind of photo very weird and unnatural looking. But then I'm just a natural kind of guy,. ;-)

[@timothysmallwood2367]

I know there are some street photographers who are shocked when they learn that their lenses are not welded at maximum aperture.

[@jakestechtravels4864]

Just found your channel, brilliant content. Also recently switched to M43 (EM-1 mk3) from Sony FF and loving the Olympus. I got tired of lugging around FF glass and the prices are stupid... M43 fits perfectly. Subbed to your channel. Keep up the good work 😁

[@fopmc]

Lovely fun video! You forgot to mention the wonderful weight advantage, cost savings for filter because of smaller filter sizes! 1 inch sensor incoming 😂 Let’s goooo!

[@MyOlympusOMD]

Chris your videos are fantastic. You are a natural presenter and it's fun to watch your videos. I recently did a brief excursion to DPReview and were blown away by the level of astroturfing ("grassroots" counter-marketing) on the M43 forum. Who are that afraid of M43? Could it be the massive used market supply of M43 cameras at excellent prices? Maybe we get a chance to talk in the future... Keep up the good work. Best Siegfried

[@christopheroconnor7659]

6:05 “being the dog’s…” as the dog runs across the background…

[@mattbibbings]

The most underrated benefit of M43. While the world is obsessively saying "blah blah noise.... Blah blah dynamic range...blah blah image quality" and ignoring the fact that none of that is a factor anymore and they are spending days blending focus stacks in post. It warms my heart.

[@marcus3d]

It's no benefit of m43. There is zero problem stopping down the aperture by 2 stops on FF. Chris is joking when he's saying you have to use f/1.8 on FF.

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

Glad you understood it was all tongue in cheek.

[@markattardo]

I like the 50mm bokeh clip where your ears were in the plane of focus more than your face / eyes😂 But seriously, great video👍👍

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

Glad you enjoyed! I manually focused on the Olympus logo on the camera and I was just ever so slightly behind it. Also crouched down and my legs were on fire 🔥

[@MrDunk66]

Some nice images Chris

[@bernardsielski8903]

Great video Chris i learn so much from them. Another problem non micro 4/3 users is the belief that they are not popper camera s only last month i read reviewer testing an olympus om10mk IV and she was most impressed with its performance she concluded it was just like a real camera and thats from a pro journalist

[@280bunny]

Keep up the good work! Glad you signed off with 'peace' as on a couple of recent posts, I think that was missing?😀

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

I don't even know where that came from, it just became a thing. Thanks for watching!

[@philiptownsend4026]

Excellent presentation. I have an OM1 D MK2 with 14-150 on order. Really looking forward to using a proper camera again after messing with a smartphone for a few years. Also a proper A3 photo printer to go with it. Resurrecting my photography hobby. My first visit to your channel, am subscribing.

[@philiptownsend4026]

Forgot to say - love your seascapes. I'd like to make photos like that but we live 1000Km from the ⛵. I really miss living on the Hampshire coast 😞

[@andybamforth]

Love that mono shot

[@frankinblackpool]

It’s a shame that you are not a real MFT photographer, like me with my Panasonic G9m2.😂 I agree with you 100% and even though I mostly do videography, I love the fact that if I set my lens to 5.6 then I’m not going to have many focusing issues when I’m editing. However the only time I’m jealous of my mate’s full frame Panasonic camera is with Astro photography or filming at night. But then we do get a lot of clouds at night. Swings and roundabouts. KZbin recommended you, so I shall stick around and mooch at some more of your stuff.😊

[@MoreiSkye]

Great video, but slightly misleading. If you're doing a comparison then MFT not only doubles the focal length (for the equivalent full frame) but also doubles the aperture equivalent. So f5.6 is the equivalent of like 11.2 on full frame. That's why you get a greater DOF on MFT if you have the same Fstop as a FF lens.

[@rickbaines8262]

Looked like Withernsea? I'll say hello if I bump into you, I'm often wandering about Holderness shooting things. One of the better photo channels yours mate, keep it up, I think you'll do well.

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

Mappleton, only a few miles down the road though. Look out for me!

[@bjjlaos]

Beautiful pictures❤ How about a video on APSC ? 😉

[@sidarta1961]

Good job! 👍🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

Thank you! 😃

[@mrdeeturk]

Another cool video Chris, can I ask what filter system you use on your setup? Cheers Dave…

[@Jones5121]

6:15 having everything in focus really makes for a dramatic feel now I don't feel so bad about my aps-c camera 😂

[@76steps]

Wow Chris! You've upped your production. You using full frame now? Hope you managed to help your pal😂 keep that mess spilling over

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

I left my pal at the beach, he was annoying me.

[@PhotosByMotaz]

Thanks for this.. a coherent and practical argument. Out of interest, you are using a filter but I thought OM5 and OM1 come with internal ND filters (I might be wrong) but if that’s the case is there a reason you’d prefer the actual filter?

[@dwmoreair885]

Excellent video

[@normstangl3499]

Truth be told, all systems have their positives and negatives. I started with APS-C, moved to FF and now I work with M43. I am a very eclectic shooter, wildlife, street, portraits events, etc. On M43, if I want good background separation I use a longer FL. The 75 mm f1.8 is brilliant for that feature yet if I want more of the background included I can do that with the 75 too. Sometimes I want just enough blurry background to tell the viewer where my subjects might be, but I still want it to be slightly blurry for less distracting detail. Other times I want complete background separation. I can achieve that. Sometimes less so than FF, but still enough to achieve my goal. However in all systems there will be compromises. In my opinion M43 offers a lot of flexibility and few compromises. Features, lens weight and price, image quality and compactness support the great versatility that our systems offer. If you really want to see the image quality coming out of the M43 sensor, try making a 20” x 26” print, review it from a metre or two and you’ll fall in love with the image output. You’ll recognize how senseless pixel peeping is. I look forward to your video posts. Thanks for your hard work.

[@vin424242]

Pixel peeping got me into a bit of an argument on fbook in that he said, but if you zoom into a photograph you will see m43 is no where near as sharp as my full frame, why the hell would you want to look at a photograph zoomed in at 100 percent, thats a bit like saying an oil painting is rubbish because up close you don't know what it is, I've back in the day shot stock car racing on 35mm manual camera for a sponser and he had them at a3 size on his office wall, look at them with a 10x loup and the wouldn't look sharp but looked at at a distance needed and they wher fine

[@normstangl3499]

@@vin424242 the only reason that I have to view at 200-800% is when I’m working on clean-up of a mask or such. Then when you view at 100% the procedure is invisible.

[@wnose]

Chris, have you experimented with the focus stacking feature of the E-M1?

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

I have not to be honest. Photoshop and all that kind of jazz isn’t a strong point of mine.

[@Swaggerlot]

You effectively summed up that the photography world is over-supplied with BS. As time passes watching YT, I find I leave more and more 'photographers' unsubscribed

[@johnehman8685]

Yes! Exactly! One of a number of advantages of MFT. And if I ever want bokeh, MFT can deliver that quite well, too. It’s the most versatile format, and that’s why I switched from FF.

[@philippedugout2278]

I use a Sony A7 iv and my oly EM1 M3, as you said, i use the 7 14 mm on my oly for my landscape etc very seldom my 24mm on my full frame, or then you stack etc ...

[@Jgatti41]

Great video. It's videos like this that help show that FF is not always the best in all situations and that M 4/3's is a very capable system. I personally think OM systems is failing in their product promotion as bad as Olympus did.

[@tomasmikeska]

FTO DOF is perfect for potraits as well, f1.8 lenses are ideal, having in focus face correctly and not only tip of the nose :)

[@jerry2357]

The big benefit of micro four thirds is that the equipment is (mostly) small and light, so ideal when you need to carry it around. I moved from a full frame DSLR to micro four thirds because I realised that I was leaving the DSLR at home and using a compact camera with a sensor of a very similar size to m43 most of the time. I was approaching 60 years old, and I was fed up lugging round a heavy camera, so I switched. I haven't regretted the decision.

[@jimmywestphoto]

f/54 and BE THERE😆😎

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

The ONLY landscape aperture on full frame!

[@c-row66]

I bought a Lumix G2 for 70 bucks and already planning a future with M43. A full commitment's what I'm thinking of...

[@AlexSegre]

I feel you could have demonstrated the MFT depth of field benefits better by doing this in low light (maybe an interior). In your demonstration a FF shooter could just stop down to get more DOF. However in low light they would need (if not on a tripod) to up the ISO by 2 stops thus increasing noise.

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

Ill do something else at night and show this if you like.

[@jonastruemper637]

@@ChrisBaitsonPhoto Yep, +1 do that. Same story: indoor people photography. As soon as you want more than 1 face in focus, deeper DoF of MFT helps.

[@jatijauhari4226]

To get the same depth of field of f5.6 on MFT, you need a FF camera at f11.2. Not f57. Just multiply the f number by the crop factor.

[@pmcbMadeInIreland]

Great video, enjoyed it. New to your channel, what 6mm lens were you using bud?

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

It's a Laowa 6mm f2 Zero D

[@pmcbMadeInIreland]

@@ChrisBaitsonPhoto thank you very much.

[@philiptownsend4026]

I think you both for the question and answer. On the strength of this video I've just ordered one !!!

[@Fuchs85DE]

On M43: Just take the 17, 25 and 45mm F1.2 for portraits where you want the "Toneh"... At least that is what I do... I still like my Z7 as well... :-)

[@LogioTek]

Another thing MFT does better than FF has to do with longer tele zoom ergonomics (size and weight), better inherent handheld optical stabilization (due to smaller and lighter lens components that can be controlled more precisely), and much cheaper lenses overall for similar reach.

[@eltinjones4542]

F5.6 usually does the trick for me on MF3. Sometimes I shoot f8, just to be on the safe side F0 if it existed would do the trick on a wide angle MF3 lens

[@comeraczy2483]

nice pics, thanks! I think you are right, the polarized discussions about sensor sizes tend to be mostly an endless repetition of inaccurate or plain wrong statements. That said, have you pixel peeped your pics at f-8, compared to f-4? I am asking because f-8 is the point where diffraction starts to show at 24Mpx on MFT. It's basically the same as f-16 on FF or f-11 on APS-C. Of course, it doesn't matter a lot for the kind of pictures you are showing in this episode, but when details are important, it can quickly become ugly.

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

You’re correct, F8 does start to show a little bit of softness on the lens and camera combination that I use most often. Out and out sharpness has never really been an obsession of mine so it’s never bothered me that much, but you’re right. It is there.

[@sbowyer525]

I have an OM 1 MK II with a 12-100 mm F4 Pro lens. Many of your videos mention you don't need a tripod and I agree, but sometimes you do like in this video. Which one did you use in this video, and which ones do you use most? I looking to get one. Thinking of a carbon fiber model. I may take some night shots, mostly landscapes. Any input would be great.

[@BillRicker]

Delightful.

[@zardosspinosa6944]

I am one of those idiots who shoot at 1.8 and worse still 1.4 . I have just come back from a trip to Cambodia. I carry 2 EM1 mk2s strapped to my body. I have a selection of those tiny primes plus the Pani 12-35 2.8 and one of my most used lenses is the 40-150 Pro 2.8. I often berate myself for shooting wide open but the dof in m4/3 is far more forgiving and a truely brilliant setup for travel. I also bring my Sony A7R3 with the Zeiss 55 1.8 and I got sucked into the Samyang 85 mm 1.4 ( should have just got the Sony 1.8) for taking portraits of the my gf and any of her gfs. I find the depth of field more challenging with the FF, but when you do get it right the images are awesome. That said the Sony just feels like a brick whereas the Olympus feels very tactile in the hands and a greater joy to use and certainly a no brainer for travel

[@rickmower1136]

I got a fever! And the only prescription.. is more depth of field.

[@theflyingdutchman7127]

hi Chris nice video more, with beautiful images. you know what also produces good images? that's the iPhone. you can effortlessly shoot beautiful images in dark churches. greetings from the Netherlands.

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

I have an iPhone but honesty, never used it for photography. I'm not a fan of the Apple RAW format.

[@theflyingdutchman7127]

@@ChrisBaitsonPhoto hi Chris I bought an iPhone 14 a year ago. and have been experimenting with it. the results were surprisingly good. Even in a dark church I have achieved good results with it.

[@rickbaines8262]

To be fair, any higher end phone is great for social media uses, but pretty useless for pro photographers. An A4 size print is as good as you are going to get. You don't see too many sports, wildlife or wedding photographers turning up with a phone.

[@barnseyb6031]

I'm a beginner. I have a mft camera. Are you saying that someone with a full frame camera can't adjust the aperture to say f16 or f22 to get good depth of field?

[@jimschmidt7303]

I may get bashed here. I shoot mainly landscape with an aluminum surveyor's tipod (look them up, sturdier than any $1000 carbon fiber tripod). On my 16mpix Lumix M43, the geenery usually lacks detail and forget about iso higher than 400. The camera does better indoors and casual family photos. Lenses are Panasonic 25mm, 11-22 Olympus 4/3 adapted, Olympus 14-42 4/3 adapted, Rokinon 12mm, Cannon 50mm f1.8, and many other M42 Nikon and Pentax lenses adapted. I bought the camera hoping to get more range out of my 200, 300 & 400mm lenses. Not sure what I am doing wrong, aperture from 1.8 up to 16 the camera image quality always lags behind my Pentax K-5 and Nikon D610.

[@edmundssteins]

Honestly, those are all some pretty dated lenses, and all the 16MP cameras use sensors that are from 2012. This is nowhere near what is needed to beat a Nikon D610. In fact, there is no m4/3 camera at all, even the latest ones taken into account, that can beat a Nikon D610 when it comes to image quality. People will try their hardest to bend that reality, but this is just a fact.

[@jimschmidt7303]

Okay, glad it is not me. I plan to keep my m4/3 for casual use. Cheers.

[@cindynichols27]

I’m a newbie and not sure I follow. Why is 50mm 1.8 the only lens being discussed for full frame?

[@brugj03]

Why is M43 always compensating for something. I just wonder.

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

Comment makes no sense…

[@anta40]

Full frame's bokeh is certainly nicer... and even more so on medium/large format. Not suprising that lots of portrait photographers gravitate towards those. But fair enough, any skillful portrait photographers can work *BOTH* on shallow and deep DoF to produce artistic shots. For me, the #1 obvious advantage of M43 is compactness. "DSLR vs mirrorless" is overused, I think. If you want a more significant compact/lighter system, don't just switch from DSLR to mirrorless. Downsize your image sensor.

[@photosbyjf]

4/3 is full frame, just a smaller frame. The problem here in the states converting to metric is the “conversion” with everyone trying think of what x-metric is in imperial. Just make the change

[@philmetcalfephotography]

loved it mate .... 😂

[@sidarta1961]

😂

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

Thanks Phil, I like to have a bit of fun with it now and again.

[@MrStevegibb]

COPE. Stop down to F11 for same depth of field on full frame. But you say you have to increase the iso. Yes you do but full frame sensors of the same generation are 2 stops better than mft sensors. What it ultimately means is that whatever mft can full frame or even apsc can do. But you need some mad lens f0.6 lens to match the light gathering/blur of an f1.2 full frame lens. Also if you like the traditional look of old film lense formulas you need a full frame sensor. Ultimately a full frame camera with an f1.2 lens is an extremely versatile low light to bright light weapon. If you want to get into vintage glass you need full frame ideally mirrorless or you will be stuck at standard to telephoto with no wide options.

[@uniquenamegames9112]

Don't say "COPE" and then spend the rest of your comment justifying full frame

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

😂

[@richardhale9664]

I think you are missing the point. All of what you say is true but the price you pay is a bigger and more expensive system, which is fine if you can afford it and you don't mind the weight. As to light gathering/blur that comes at a cost of DOF. Next to nothing is in focus on FF at f1.8 or larger, which is actually a disadvantage. Your last point about vintage glass is the most valid argument for FF, and is the reason I have a FF camera, but how many people buy FF for this reason? Not many I expect and why if it is such a big thing is it not marketed as such? I suspect it's because the manufacturers definitely do not want you using old lenses on their new bodies as that equals smaller profits

[@timothykieper]

This somewhat brings up my question (complaint) regarding some landscape photogrpahers on KZbin. Why do you need $5,000 worth of gear (or more) for landscape photos?

[@recreationalplutonium]

$5k? That's amateur hour. If you don't have a full built camper van and a Hasselblad X2D 100C you're a nobody! ;)

[@LGoody9273]

@@recreationalplutonium 🤣😂

[@jimmywestphoto]

Well, you don't. That's the whole point. But I guess being a "pro" also means you want ALL the detail possible.

[@stevenbamford5245]

They make their living from being professional landscape, travel photographers. That's like saying why does a pro golfer have thousands worth of golf gear to play golf. Maybe the question is why do the pro landscape photographers not use MFT ?

[@JasonBetz-k2r]

A+

[@frankwong9486]

m43: Buy sets of lenses covers many things without breaking the bank 7-14 f4 ,OM 1250 which have barely usable marco, 100300 17/20 pancake 25mm Panasonic prime 45 1.8 OM (Don't go 75mm prime ,thats expensive) Only things m43 can't do well : dumb shallow dof like what I do on 135format (50 0.95) High ISO thing I still like m43 most the time

[@blisteringbooks2428]

Yes, but a bridge camera has much more dof that that, and you can have a lens that goes from 28-3000mm.

[@philiptownsend4026]

I had two bridge cameras in the past, both well regarded brands but I just didn't like them. The extreme zooms were impossible to use - camera shake.

[@blisteringbooks2428]

@@philiptownsend4026 I use mainly Full Frame, thought the Nikon P1000 has a fantastic zoom I worked out that using my 150-600 with a x2 extender and heavily cropping I can get a similar range on my camera, just a few less pixels. The quality at 3000mm on the Nikon is poor, focus, amount of compressed atmosphere, but good for a laugh, just not worth spending money on. I was almost tempted by a Sony RX10, but I like my FF sensor quality.

[@liselottepulver2819]

The one with the widest zoom range I know of is the Nikon P1000 which has a 4.3 to 539 mm lens. You would need a 3000mm lens on FF to get an equivalent angle of view. But I assume you allready knew that.

[@liselottepulver2819]

This shocking truth is unknown to most Photographers: You can use high f numbers un FF. You can actually shoot on f/11 and beyond. f/16 will give you the same DoF as f/8 on mft. And you also have a base ISO of 100 (or even 64) instead of just 200, which helps you to shoot at longer exposer times than on mft without the need to use ND filters! If that is not enough one can use a large format camera at f/64.

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

You CAN do all of that on micro four thirds. Not all MFT cameras have a base ISO of 200…

[@liselottepulver2819]

@@ChrisBaitsonPhoto And you can do it on FF. Just double f number and ISO and you are equal.

[@michaelknibbs]

Fashion and portrait work. But as for the rest of us? I'm a wildlife and nature guy - and MFT is the "Dog's B@LL@X".

[@carlwilson3482]

Mappleton beach

[@romani8494]

People shooting landscapes on large format cameras don't realize how terrible those cameras are for landscape photography. Right.

[@Cybercygni]

Kunde inte sagt det bättre själv. FF är övervärderat.

[@HughRogers609]

I know this is tongue in cheek, but I don't get it. Surely a M43 and FF can achieve exactly the same results in this scenario. you might just need different settings to do it.

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

Yes they pretty much can. Was totally tongue in cheek.

[@HughRogers609]

@@ChrisBaitsonPhoto Cheers Chris. Just threw me as I'm trying to sort of the whole APSC vs m43 thing at the moment. Am looking at more compact cameras like Fuji xt30, Nik Zfc and that's how the OM came into the picture. So if you do want bokeh backgrounds, how is that done with m43? You take some lovely images, good videos, thanks

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

@ use something fast or something with a longer focal length. You can get the background blur it it isn’t as pronounced as on a larger sensor.

[@NickDixon]

I mean of course you can get depth of field with full frame, even with medium format. But first you have to stop using words like "bokeh" and "cinematic" and actually learn how to use a camera's full range. Also, do I want to lug around a 150-600 that's as big as my leg, or an Olympus 75-300 that's under half a kilo and lets me shoot handheld? This is what M43 was made for.

[@recreationalplutonium]

based

[@photofreaksk]

What to hell are you talking about? With 12mm on FF which is equiv. of your 6mm Is sharp everything from 30cm to infinity on 5,6...

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

Thank you for being the one 😂😆

[@photofreaksk]

@@ChrisBaitsonPhotoYou mean the only one who react on this bullshit?

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

Yeah man. That was the entire purpose of the video. To get a reaction.

[@paulplus3830]

You're just lucky, smartphone users don't care about such details as DOF. They would beat MFT any time with their pinhole cameras. :P

[@evenhandedcommentor6102]

Kind of silly video. Use a shallow depth of field when you want to separate the subject from the background. If you're shooting landscape, you would never do that. Also, you get greater depth of field of any view with a shorter focal length...regardless of camera sensor. So, 12mm in m4/3's gives the same field of view as 24mm in full frame. 12mm has more depth of field than 24mm at the same f stop regardless of sensor size. Basic optical physics. All that said, the smaller sensor cameras use shorter focal lengths for the same field of view, so they will have greater depth of field. Want even more depth of field in a scene, use a smaller sensor camera than the m4/3's!!!

[@mk1photography62]

Its total BS these cameras are perfectly designed for many types of photography. Its full frame of what? "Full frame" is actually a myth

[@ChrisBaitsonPhoto]

That’s for the insight and sharing of knowledge there.

[@photosbyjf]

4/3 is full frame, just a smaller frame. The problem here in the states converting to metric is the “conversion” with everyone trying think of what x-metric is in imperial. Just make the change