Sensor Size Pros and Cons | Coloured Filters for Contrast Control | Launch of 2025 Photo Challenge

[@ColinMatheson-j6o]

You have convinced me that my Micro 4/3 is the best choice. Superior for my interests including hill walking and mountaineering, astro photography, wildlife photography and oh you forgot to mention the fabulous macro capabilities for dragonflies and butterflies. Much better value for money and some terrific lenses.

[@PhotographyOnline]

@@ColinMatheson-j6o sounds like you have the perfect camera system for your needs. Well done.

[@imagenatura]

I love how you're talking about "Micro Four Thirds", but you're showing and E-510, which is a "Four Thirds" DSLR.

[@PhotographyOnline]

@@imagenatura - we didn’t have an APS or a medium format camera either but we made the point. All we needed was a small sensor and a large sensor.

[@warrendibb394]

​@@PhotographyOnline you made the point is hardly the point.....mentioning the sensor was the same size would have been an adequate explanation.... particularly for any beginner wondering what the camera was. I think it's called production values. 😊

[@PhotographyOnline]

@@warrendibb394 same size as?

[@VlastPojman]

I agree it should have been mentioned that the camera used is a four thirds camera and therefore larger than the MFT equivalent. Also the camera used in this video is at least 10 years old. Also everyone mentions the low light drawbacks.

[@PhotographyOnline]

@ - we didn’t use it to compare its low light capabilities so what difference would that have made?

[@donk8292]

Unfortunately your "expert" seems very limited in his knowledge of Micro Four Thirds and Depth of Field. There is an advantage to having more DOF with MFT, in my 10 years or more experience shooting both MFT and FF. Alas, he has chosen a subject, portraiture, where the greater DOF of Micro Four Thirds is not usually relevant. Greater depth of field means getting a wider focal range in focus, not usually a priority in portraiture.. As a photographer who has shot a lot of flower images, when I got my first FF camera in 2014 after having a Canon crop camera since 2005, I was quite surprised that I could NOT get the same images with a FF camera - where I could get an entire wide flower, or a group of flowers in focus - as I could with a crop camera. There was no f stop high enough, or it as so high as to be way into diffraction territory. I bought my first MFT camera at that time in order to get those shots due to the increased DOF. Increased DOF is also an advantage for most landscapes, where a wider DOF is usually preferred. With my FF camera, landscapes are typically shot at f/7.1, f/8 or higher. With MFT, I can easily shoot them at f/4, thus negating most of the low light advantage of FF in those situations. The DOF example shown in this video's MFT section, is the exact opposite situation, where a narrower depth of field is desired - as in portraits. And, yes, the FF camera is better suited for narrower DOF. While the advantage of telephoto lenses for MFT is given, it is brushed over rather quickly as an advantage in size. The reach advantage while being able to use shorter focal length lenses compared to a FF camera is what makes MFT a great system for birders and wildlife shooters. I have simultaneously owned both FF and crop cameras since 2014, including FF cameras such as the Canon R5, a 45 MP camera. None of them have been able to match the resolution advantage of MFT if using the same focal length lenses, where the MFT system has a 2x crop factor. So, it is not just the size advantage fo being able to use shorter focal length lenses, but the cost. Cost may be the number 1 advantage of the MFT system if one is a bird or wildlife photographer. In terms of low light performance, yes, the larger the sensor, the better the low light ability. This is an advantage of a FF camera. I do not mean to imply that there are no advantages to a FF camera, low light performance and shallower DOF being the main ones. Luckily, for users of crop cameras, noise reduction software has improved to the point that has somewhat negated the low light advantage of a larger sensor. Having owned both FF cameras, MFT and also APS-C cameras since 2014, I can easily say that there are pros and cons to each system. But, for what I primarily shoot - birds, wildlife, flowers, and landscapes - in the daytime - my go-to camera is my MFT camera. It gives me the best results, or equal results, in al of those areas, in my experience.

[@pawelbrzozowski3899]

Greater depth of field is a limitation of smaller sensors, not an advantage. A bigger sensor can always match the DOF of a smaller one by reducing the lens aperture. After a certain point, it cannot be done the other way around. Diffraction is not a valid argument since all cameras are affected by it. Smaller and more densely packed sensors more so.

[@LukeBrownFigmentoFilms]

Full frame user here, this was a pretty poor representation of the reasons to choose a Micro Four Thirds system. I had and loved my MFT cameras because of the user experience and they were often laden with features not found in full frame cameras at all. Being able to shoot all day and have a camera brimming with incredible features was hugely joyous. But here are more reasons: Why Choose Micro Four Thirds Over Full-Frame? Portability: MFT cameras and lenses are smaller and lighter, ideal for travel and long shoots. Cost-Effectiveness: MFT systems are more affordable than high-resolution full-frame cameras. Adaptability: MFT allows easy use of legacy and manual lenses from most major brands. Depth of Field: Greater depth of field at equivalent settings, beneficial for landscapes and macro (yes, including when you factor cropping in on a full frame because you incorrectly state most full frames are between 40-60mp, this is not true, only approx 20% of the market meets this criteria and the ones that aren't are especially expensive) Pixel Density & Cropping: Full-Frame (20-40 MP): Lower pixel density = better low-light performance but less detail when cropping. MFT (20MP): Higher pixel density retains more detail in crops but may introduce noise in low light. Summary: MFT excels in portability, cost, and adaptability, making it a great choice for those prioritising size and flexibility. Full-frame offers superior low-light performance and dynamic range, but at a higher cost and weight. Furthermore, there is that all important user experience, any camera that lands in my hands is a pro camera by virtue of me being a professional, therefore I can get great results from most cameras. But not all cameras are a joy to use, not all cameras make me want to go out and shoot or inspire my creativity, MFT while certainly having drawbacks definitely provided that experience for me.

[@PhotographyOnline]

You’ve basically just repeated what we said in the feature. As far as the user experience goes -. This has nothing to do with the sensor size, so it’s irrelevant here. As we outlined, MFT costs around half that of FF but for only 25% of the sensor area, so it offers poor value for money. APS is the clear winner for value.

[@LukeBrownFigmentoFilms]

@@PhotographyOnline Thank you for the response! I appreciate your perspective, but I’d like to clarify a few things about the value and feature set of Micro Four Thirds (MFT) cameras compared to APS-C and full-frame systems. While I agree that user experience isn’t directly tied to sensor size, it’s a crucial part of why many users, myself included, choose a system. And when it comes to value for money, I think MFT is often underestimated, especially when you compare specifications rather than just sensor size: Advanced Features: Many MFT cameras offer features that contemporary APS-C cameras simply cannot match. For example: GH7: The only camera capable of oversampled 4K 120p video at its price point, with incredible video-focused tools. OM-1: Up to 120fps burst shooting (APS-C systems struggle to match this speed), dual recording modes, and industry-leading image stabilization for both video and stills. High-Resolution Modes: Both systems provide excellent computational photography features like handheld high-res modes, a rarity in APS-C cameras. Portability and Stabilization: MFT cameras and lenses are smaller, lighter, and better stabilized than their APS-C counterparts, which is crucial for travel, long shoots, and handheld work. Video Features: MFT consistently outperforms APS-C in video capabilities. Features like internal 10-bit recording, dual card recording, and oversampling (vs. line-skipping or pixel-binning in APS-C) are common in MFT but scarce or expensive in APS-C systems. True Cost Comparison: Value for money isn’t just about sensor size. When you factor in these advanced features, MFT cameras often deliver far better bang for your buck. For example, an APS-C system with equivalent video and burst specs to the GH7 or OM-1 simply doesn’t exist, even at higher price points. So, while sensor size comparisons are valid, MFT’s specs, features, and ecosystem offer tremendous value for those who prioritize versatility, portability, and cutting-edge technology. Dismissing the system purely based on sensor size or "value per sensor area" overlooks the very real advantages that MFT offers, especially to professionals and enthusiasts looking for a flexible, compact system. Lastly, I’d argue that the joy of shooting and the inspiration a camera provides are priceless. While MFT may not be for everyone, it offers a unique and powerful experience that’s hard to match at its price and size.

[@ShootingAndReloading]

Your statement that high pixel density causes poor low-light performance of 4/3rds cameras cannot be accurate. At 9:13 you say “the tighter the pixels are crammed”… “the less light they are going to receive”. In a recent well executed comparison, the low light performance of the Sony α7R V (61MP) and Alpha α7S III (12MP) were evaluated for low light performance and astro photography. While the α7S III is somewhat universally proclaimed as the low-light king, the α7R V was better in all tests - less noise and more detail. This is at odds with your observations as the α7R V has 7.09 MP/cm2 and the α7S III only 1.42 MP/cm2, and both sensors are of the same technology generation. So, I put it to you that the issue of poor low light performance is not a facet of high pixel density, but other aspects of the sensor technology. Perhaps you are getting better sensor technology in full frame? ;) Additionally, you talked about the large sensors ability to generate shallower depth of field for a given field of view and aperture. While this is advantageous for some photography styles, such as portrait, surely the reverse is then an advantage for cropped sensors in other genres such as landscape - you can have a deeper depth of field for a given field of view and aperture and therefore avoid post processing like focus-stacking. Great 1st show for 2025 :)

[@PhotographyOnline]

We said “as a general rule”, not “as a fact in all situations”

[@ShootingAndReloading]

@@PhotographyOnlineyou did say “general rule”, but that then relates to your premise that high pixel density = poor low light performance. While I completely agree that in the real world full frame beats micro 4/3rds and APS-C in low light, where I disagree is with the high pixel density you provide as a reason. This is demonstrably not correct. Would you rather take a ​​⁠ Fujifilm GFX 50S or a Sony A1II on a low light shoot? If manufacturers were to produce sensors of the same quality / specification across the formats, then there would be no difference in low light performance between any of them. Recent sensor technology beats “big light buckets”. Give me a A6700 over an old full frame camera every day!

[@seanteague2522]

Smaller pixels does cause the issues, have a 20 mp sensor and a 40 mp sensor, same electronics there will be a clear winner, the age of any camera and the fact that manufacturers don’t progress a the same speed are factors also

[@liveinaweorg]

How difficult would it have been to have got an M4/3 camera in place of the 4/3 camera? I get the point you were trying to make but it makes it appear you aren't taking the comparison seriously in my view.

[@PhotographyOnline]

@@liveinaweorg - it was quite difficult actually. We had a week to get one and get it filmed and that was the only one we could get in time. As you say, it made the point. Thanks for watching

[@brendan190770]

correct!!

[@simonstevens1631]

Nice to see you guys back. Its been about a year since I've seen anything from you guys. I gather you switched your show plans. The downside is I'm not seeing you pop up on my feed. The old format you had seemed to work well but as you said it was very intensive to make the shows. Hopefully I and many others will see more content from you. Your podcasts that you've been doing are lost in the mist as many of us oldies don't know how that stuff works lol. All the best guys for 2025 .

[@PhotographyOnline]

@@simonstevens1631 - hi Simon. You are not the only person who doesn’t get notified about our videos. We released 10 shows last year, so we haven’t gone anywhere. Listening to our podcast couldn’t be easier - we’ve even included a link to it in the video, but you could simply google “Photography Online Podcast” and it’ll pop up.

[@simonstevens1631]

@PhotographyOnline thanks

[@johnchambers6272]

Great start to the year with this informative video. Really enjoy the banter in the challenge. Well done team.

[@PhotographyOnline]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@RamblingTog]

With the vast improvements in editing software there are now no issues with digital noise for M43 and you can always use the super enhance facility in lightroom to increase resolution. As a mountain climber / walker id rather lug a micro 43 with various lenses than my full frame Canon. If you had done your research thoroughly you would have noticed the vast selection of lenses available for M43.

[@karlgrabherr7769]

Funny fact is that you use a FT camera instead of a MFT camera and even more funny is that you use a camera from around 2008 ;-)

[@PhotographyOnline]

@@karlgrabherr7769 - the purpose was to show a small sensor vs a larger one. The FF camera we used was from 2017. Using a modern version of either camera would have made no difference because old fashioned small and large are still small and large even in the modern world.

[@karlgrabherr7769]

​@@PhotographyOnline The only difference is, that sensor technology has improved significantly and the gap between full frame and smaller sensors has become a lot tighter. And a camera system cannot be reduced to sensor size. If you want to make a serious comparison, you also need to talk about availability, price and size of very high focal lenghts and macro capabilities. I don't know any full frame lens that has a focal range of 300 to 1200mm, which is wearable, has not the price of a car and can be used without a tripod. But i will stop here, because it doesn't make sense to discuss any longer. Actually i am using a MFT system and i also have a full frame system, both of which have their advantages and disadvantages. There is no system that does it all.

[@BirdsandMore2376]

Great start to the new year with Photography Online. The bit with the Highland cows had me laughing. Keep it coming!

[@PhotographyOnline]

Thanks, will do!

[@ronjenkins4257]

Full frame lenses can be fitted to an APSC body; the converse is less true, at least not without vignetting or cropping. So in fact APSC bodies have a *greater* selection of lenses than full frame, not the other way around.

[@wellwhatthen10101]

Totally correct

[@PhotographyOnline]

We were talking about dedicated lenses. The problem with using FF lenses on APS bodies is that everything gets effectively magnified by 1.5. So a wide lens such as 16mm isn’t actually that wide on APS. Therefore the system is limited at the short end of the focal range.

[@paulhoffman4712]

In Harry's sensor comparison he briefly mentioned there are fewer lenses available for APS-C cameras. If you go Canon, their full frame lenses will fit an APS-C camera without adapters, thus expanding the available range.

[@dominiclester3232]

Yep, same for Nikon F and Nikon Z lenses. There are way more lenses for m4/3 cameras than any other mirrorless system; I’m not sure if Harry mentioned that.

[@lphilpot01]

Yes, exactly. I've used Canon APS-C DSLRs and have never bought an EF-S lens.

[@LanceBowes]

Another wonderful video! My favorite photography team on the internet!

[@happymystic9800]

Wow, what a hilarious start to a new year with the Skye team 😂😂😂 … don’t let us wait too long for the next stage of the challenge. 😊 … Happy New Year 😊

[@PhotographyOnline]

Happy new year!!

[@awksedgreep]

Great production quality. Shame they forgot the brains.

[@bigdhav]

Such a cool photo challenge!

[@teepee63]

I did overwhelmingly move to M43 for the reasons of size and simplicity. One small ilc (an e m5 III) and two good quality pro zooms are all I need for what I do. I would say that 90% of my needs would be met by any system and then it's a case of deciding if the other 10% are compromises you could live with. I decided they were and in fact discovered the differences are often more nuanced than people think (I'm not denying those differences exist). It's as well, if you can, to try the different formats and see for yourself, that's exactly how I went about making my choice by trying all three formats and seeing which suited how I use a camera.

[@PhotographyOnline]

@@teepee63 perfectly said.

[@ffoeguk]

i am sorry but you do not know much about M4/3 its has it limitations but once you know them you can create any image you like = the old camera you had is not a M4/3. I have M4/3 and Sony A7r5 pick the M4/3 up first everytime

[@PhotographyOnline]

@@ffoeguk maybe you can explain the advantages (other than size and weight) of MFT?

[@ffoeguk]

@@PhotographyOnline Image stabilisation far exceeds any FF camera, the computational stuff - Live Comp, Live Time The Hand Held high resolution 50M/ 80M on a tripod. Built in ND filters (OM2 now has Grad filters). Excellent Tracking of subjects. Not just about the size and weight it allows the Amateur and Professional to explore photography and create images with ease.

[@PhotographyOnline]

@@ffoeguk none of the advantages you list are connected to sensor size. This is not a “which camera is best” but a look at the pros and cons of various sensor sizes. The features are not relevant here, but it’s great to hear that you are happy with your gear - probably the most important factor in photography.

[@ffoeguk]

@@PhotographyOnline I can achieve a shallow depth of field with my M4/3 the 75 mm f1.8 lens does this great for portraits to name but one , i love this Show but it is the Photography Show but it seems weighted towards FF. If you are going to compare, compare, not just one perceived problem, why not challenge yourself to use one for your photography for a month, I am sure OM would jump at the free advertising.

[@PhotographyOnline]

@ you are correct that a 75mm f/1.8 lens will give a shallow dof when focused reasonably close up, but you could get a far shallower dof on a ff camera. This was the point made in the feature - any larger sensor can be made to match a smaller sensor but not the other way round. We’re not bashing smaller sensors, just stating that pros and cons.

[@joncothranphotography9375]

So cool! The challenge is a real tough one. I am a full frame shooter and I have shot crop sensor cameras. The full frame just has a better feel to it. Thanks for the insight into B/W images. Thanks so much!

[@PeggyMundy]

Looking forward to the rest of the photo challenge!

[@rogerlush3344]

Brilliant show, as always, and I'm loving the photo challenge, but guys, think outside the box, get some of the smaller items and take them with you so you can use them with immovable objects? Really looking forward to the rest of this challenge.

[@michaeltorpy3366]

Hi guys greetings from Thailand happy new year great start to the 2025 season love the challenge accurist watches iconic hmm 😊😂

[@PhotographyOnline]

Happy new year!

[@steveworthington930]

You don,t mention Hi Res in MFT? Or 50MP handheld? First in many innovation,s, IBIS class leading, choice of superb glass etc. Totally biased report.

[@PhotographyOnline]

We didn’t mention hi res because all cameras do that, and it’s pretty pointless anyway.

[@brendan190770]

​@@PhotographyOnlineconstructive reply that one 😂 obviously you haven't deeply delved into the hand held hi res modes in the OM1 mkii, Or the ISO capabilities. I'll stick with my decision to use this system after ditching the Sony full frame system. I can throw away the weight of a tripod, ND modes are built into camera and hand held mode with pixel shifting gives me 50mp. Using the Zuiko pro lenses instead of the cheeper options you displayed in you're video would also help, not to mention the option of the Leica ones. That relic 4/3 camera with the prehistoric lens is hardly a fair comparison to the most recent m4/3 system. Terribly uninformed vlog this one.

[@steveworthington930]

@@PhotographyOnline Your example was a 20 yr old camera, test the OM 2 please.

[@PhotographyOnline]

@@steveworthington930 what difference would that make to the size of the sensor? We didn’t “test” any camera. We drew a comparison between two different sensor sizes.

[@steveworthington930]

@@PhotographyOnline You know full well with post editing the sensor size is irrelevent, your biased period.

[@stephendarlington]

Certainly on the Canon side, APS-C cameras have more choice of lenses than full-frame cameras and the same amount of pro-lenses available as full-frame. I am looking forward to the challenge as the number of available icons to pair (or even treble up) drops and you end up looking to get the Royal Family with Monty Python!

[@Mr.Nobody_etc.]

Bravo on handling the cow problem, I will predict perhaps Ruth, although a mighty challenge, may be disappointed as I have full confidence the boys will pull this one off. Not adding it in by Photoshop was also a very noble act. Go team !! ..lol

[@MrFastforwardcoach]

AN enjoyable show as always. BUT... almost half of the show on the challenge and not enough about photography and photography techniques.

[@PhotographyOnline]

It’s the challenge which funds the entire show. Without that, there wouldn’t be a show.

[@MichaelWerneburg]

I'm amazed at the cheap average APS-C prices in the UK. Wish it were anything like that here in Japan, where APS-C is 50% - 100% more than MFT gear, and climbing.

[@Paul26525]

Awesome explanation of the use of color filters and their effect on light and contrast in B&W.

[@PhotographyOnline]

Glad it was helpful!

[@entilzha]

Really nicely produced video(s)! I have one suggestion: could you add timestamps to make it easy to watch specific parts of the video?

[@fredphillips2718]

Kudos to Harry for making a brave attempt, but I feel he 'stepped in it' trying to cover the complex, nuanced and emotion packed sensor size subject in a 10 minute clip. He fell short of giving beginners all the advice they should get while most seasoned shooters have already made their choice (or have multiple systems). His parting comment to go for the largest sensor you can afford needs to be modified to include the impact of lens choices based on one's anticipated use. Comparing just camera body prices to describe value for money distorts the cost picture especially if one is interested in longer telephotos - just look at the cost of a MFT 300 mm f4 vs. a similar field of view FF 600 mm f4 lens. Throw in considerations for different native aspect ratios, impact of newer noise reduction software, in-camera computational features (e,g, stacking, graduated ND, etc.). It isn't a simple decision. On the other hand, for many just their smartphone is all the camera they need anyway - and that is a yet smaller sensor.

[@AndyG_64]

I just traded in all my Olympus MFT equipment and bought Sony full frame !! The improved sharpness and light performance is what I am enjoying the most. I must admit I got many great shots with shallow DOF and bokeh with the Olympus over the years, just #shootwideopen LOL. Suggestion, just sit in that phone box, reading the back cover of a Beatles album, tick tock and you're on the clock. Just say no to shop.

[@zuckshot]

Happy New Year! Is Marcus feeling okay? A paragraph worth of hash tags on instagram and now a suggestion of photoshop?! Good to have you all back. Great show as always!

[@craigmaisfield3247]

Brilliant show. Looking forward to the challenge.. Happy New year to you all..

[@PhotographyOnline]

Happy new year!

[@webersteve1547]

Maybe I missed it, but are the exposures corrected accordingly to the filters?

[@PhotographyOnline]

@@webersteve1547 - yes. The yellow filter needs a +1/3 increase. The orange needs a +1 stop increase and the red requires a +1 stop and 2/3rds increase.

[@ianevans9957]

Thank you, great program and very informative as normal.

[@washingtonradio]

The smaller the pixel the fewer photons they can receive before being saturated. Thus the poorer low light performance of smaller sensors. However, if the ISO amplification adds little to no noise using a higher ISO might mitigate this at the loss of dynamic range.

[@branigan99]

MFT average price seems a little misleading as the lens choice and value is much better than high end glass on other systems. Love my 75mm f1.8 the 40-150 f2.8 and a whole range of other small but high quality glass.

[@Mr.Nobody_etc.]

I just noticed this on the second watch, Harry has an Olympus E510 in his hand. That is not a M4/3 but the original 4/3. I have the E500 and the E420, both similar but the E420 has a the NMOS / LIVE MOS sensor 4/3 which avails early "Live View" and the E500 has the Kodak CCD. Newer M4/3 is probably smaller and likely CMOS. I never actually checked.

[@PhotographyOnline]

You are correct but the purpose of the video was simply to show the differences between small and large sensor sizes. Hopefully this was achieved

[@Mr.Nobody_etc.]

@@PhotographyOnline Absolutely I think it was awesome that Harry had a 510. Super good choice and wonderful information as usual. I will go far as to say, I don't think it's possible for the team to make a bad video and there is nothing else like it out there either.

[@AlistairHig]

To be fair, full frame mirrorless can be smaller and lighter than some dslr aps-c sensors too.

[@rcpmac]

A medium format sensor may only be 20% wider than ff but the ff is 60% smaller. A bigger difference than apps.

[@PhotographyOnline]

@@rcpmac the issue at hand here is the adjustment on focal length. Using a 23mm lens on a GFX100 gives the same angle of view as a 18mm lens on a FF camera. That’s only a 20% difference (not 60%).

[@billgreen1140]

It would have been helpful to include more filters in the color filter segment. All the filters used were on one side of the color wheel. They demonstrated subtle differences but a green or blue would have really shown a dramatic difference, especially in the food shots.

[@PhotographyOnline]

You could make that feature Bill. Well include it in a future show. How’s that?

[@billgreen1140]

@ wow. Sorry I mentioned it. you guys don’t take suggestions or critique very well.

[@dominiclester3232]

Thanks guys! I hope Ruth gets rid of her cold and you all get some sunshine before February. 😂

[@PhotographyOnline]

Ruth has a cold?

[@steveh1273]

I enjoyed the sensor size issue and the film filter effects, but the game, not again.

[@PhotographyOnline]

“The game” (Howe’s known as The Photo Challenge is what funds the entire show. If we only made technical or factual features void of entertainment then it wouldn’t be possible to make the show at all, as no one is prepared to put any funding into those. The other option would be to have those horrendous sponsorship commercials (Squarespace, Skillshare, etc) throughout our shows and no one wants that. Glad you enjoyed the non profit section of the show though. Happy new year.

[@ColinMatheson-j6o]

Rather than looking at just sensor size pros and cons could we see a much more balanced comparison between MFT and FF? For example I don't have the latest OM-1 but my E-M1 iii includes fantastic image stabilisation, starry sky AF, built in ND filter, focus stacking and amazing macro capabilities. It also has size and weight advantages which were about the only positives you mentioned. Get hold of a new MFT camera - you might actually find you like it.

[@PhotographyOnline]

Our feature wasn’t about MFT vs FF. It wasn’t about features either. It was to give people an insight into what difference sensor sizes make to a photo so they can decide which is most suitable for their needs on a basic level. The features you describe are not tied to a specific sensor size. IBIS is available for all sensor sizes.

[@teepee63]

I intend to shoot a bit more film this year after a re-purchase of my favourite film camera an OM2n and filters were on my mind but then so was something like Ilfords SFX200 film. Maybe later on that one, an FP4 first.

[@PhotographyOnline]

Good luck with the film camera. If you do shoot SFX then using a red filter is the next best thing to using an IR filter.

[@stuartfeen9236]

Another good one!

[@Pixelpeeps-69]

Who gives a flying toss about full frame or blah blah just go out and take photos

[@PhotographyOnline]

Lots of people care.

[@peterosborne9802]

Its no surprise that this problem don't like MFT especially olympus/om systems.

[@SamSamTutorialMan]

Mate, that isn't a Micro Four Thirds camera in your comparison

[@PhotographyOnline]

@@SamSamTutorialMan the sensor size is the same, which is what the feature is about.

[@rangersmith4652]

I have full-frame, APS-C, and M4/3. All have their unique pros and cons. I find APS-C to be great value, not just the cameras, but the glass. Sure, "pro-level" lens selection is more restricted, but that argument assumes one must have such lenses. In truth, almost nobody, relatively speaking, needs super expensive glass.

[@alanwilson7792]

29:30 - fewer lens choices (??), but you can also use full-frame lenses on APSC but not the other way round, so it could be argued that there are _more_ lens choices for APSC cameras using the same lens mount (without getting into exotic combinations).

[@PhotographyOnline]

Yes, but you’re then limited with the wider angle lenses on APS, as everything gets effectively multiplied by 1.5. So a 14mm lens on an APS camera isn’t actually that wide.

[@paulharhen5444]

Can the following be answered in the comments please afterwards? (1) Colour filters for B&W digital photos. Is it the same logic as for film? (2) Full Frame (35mm) vs. Cropped Medium Format (or even Full Frame Digital Medium Format, 645 equivalent). Is either medium frame format benefit worth the effort?

[@PhotographyOnline]

@@paulharhen5444 - your question on coloured filters is covered in the show. As for “full frame digital medium format” - there isn’t any such thing as the largest digital sensor isn’t as big as the smallest of proper medium format sizes. But regardless, we look at the pros and cons of various sensor sizes, from MFT up to the so called “medium format” - which should more accurately be called “super full frame”. As to whether there would be benefits for you to use this, is really up to how much control you want over depth of field. The show outlines this, so hopefully your question will be answered. Hope you enjoy the show.

[@paulharhen5444]

@@PhotographyOnline Thank you!

[@SpudUna]

Correct me if I’m wrong but colour filters on a digital camera for black and white only work as they should on a monochrome sensor ?

[@PhotographyOnline]

@@SpudUna - yes, this is what we said in the feature. There is no point in using coloured filters on a camera which captures colour information, even if you have it set to b&w

[@paulbennett274]

@@PhotographyOnline You're glossing over the principle benefit of larger sensor sizes and that is their ability to accommodate greater bit depths and dynamic range providing smoother transitions in tonal output. Although unlikely to be of interest to most of your core audience a Phase One IQ4 backed camera combines up to a15-stop dynamic range, 16 -bit colour depth and 150mp resolution in a sensor size of 53mmx40mm that is very close to the old 645 medium film format's effective negative area and that is approximately 2.5 times '35mm/Full Frame'; which Phase One's marketing department likes to market as 'Full Frame Digital Medium Format' to differentiate it from the other, smaller 'Digital Medium Format' sizes from Fujifilm and Hasselblad. The sting in the tail is the typical base cost of circa £50,000! Even the majority of professional commercial photographers tend to hire this kit as the return on investment required is just too high to justify outright purchase. Another great and informative episode nevertheless!

[@dtravisphd]

I love your show and think your production values are top-notch. But the section on sensor size felt a bit one-sided. Reading through your responses to other comments, it seems like the intent was to compare sensor sizes in isolation. But who actually chooses a camera based solely on sensor size? If that were the case, we'd all be shooting medium format. The reality is that sensor size can’t be separated from other attributes like weight, price, computational features, and burst rate (fps), which go in the wrong direction as sensor size increases. For instance, OM Systems cameras strike a great balance by offering excellent portability and advanced features while still allowing you to print an image at A3 size that's indistinguishable from a print from a medium format camera. In the real world, a camera's sensor size is just one part of a much larger equation.

[@PhotographyOnline]

You are correct that the purpose of the feature was to illustrate how sensor size influences the image they record. That was it. No features were involved, as this (as you rightly say) wasn’t the purpose of the video. We often get asked which system people should buy, so this was to show the main difference in end result and portability. You can’t start looking at things like burst rate, as that’s not linked to sensor size. Hope that makes sense.

[@wellwhatthen10101]

When would you auto iso

[@PhotographyOnline]

Never.

[@wellwhatthen10101]

​​@@PhotographyOnline why not if the camera has it built in . And if never why don't you explain you would never auto iso in any situation.

[@GaryHayes]

Great content and useful info for beginners well done but on a tangent - audio dynamic range. I appreciate you are imitating traditonal TV production values and that includes extreme compressing the audio of your programs. Sadly after more than a few minutes listening it can become really quite tiring, especially combined with very few pauses. This just refers to the audio and is more noticeable when compared with other KZbin photo content that has more relaxed 'technical' audio - just a thought ... less compression, a few more breathing spaces in your delivery?

[@PhotographyOnline]

Hi Gary. Thanks for your comments and happy new year. Our audio isn’t actually that compressed. We only use a 5:1 ratio with the threshold reducing the peaks by a max of 6db. We only do this to help the mics cut through the background music. If we didn’t, then everyone would complain that they couldn’t hear the presenters (a common comment we receive). Hope that makes sense and explains why we did what we do.

[@GaryHayes]

@@PhotographyOnline Thanks, yes it is a slippery slope and dropping the peaks by 6db limiting is a form of compression, I guess also running background music exacerbates the audio HDR issue too. But those hearing challenged folk as you say are the most likely to complain

[@donridgway7269]

Regarding the new challenge: Have you ever heard of an American expression, "Jumping the shark"?

[@user-ik9gw4wh4c]

I also have and use a green filter.

[@jos_t_band3912]

About sensors: there are no solutions, only trade-offs.

[@francisoakland9114]

Such a shame to reduce the episode to mft bashing. If there is little point to mft then where does that leave film cameras and their users? Will they go the same way as the dinosaur? or is photography all about enjoying the equipment you have, in the environment you choose. Very sad.

[@PhotographyOnline]

Can you explain where we “bashed” MFT? We said it’s the camera to choose if you want a compact and lightweight setup!

[@russellbaston974]

Enjoyable as always maybe some perhaps debatable statements in the" formats comparison" albeit a different aspect ratio, but the MF (Fuji) sensor has 70% greater area. than FF, 1,408 : 864 sq.mm. The DOF is a function of the field of view /focal length relationship rather than the format itself a 25mm lens on a MF sensor would have the same DOF as a 25mm on MFT but the fields of view would be very different, from the same taking position. MF doesn't inherently give a shallower DOF.

[@PhotographyOnline]

This is exactly what we said.

[@russellbaston974]

@@PhotographyOnline “ for only 25% more sensor over full frame” -what you said.

[@azjoe_6310]

We can agree to disagree but the M43 portion of your video I feel was a bit of an unfair downer. You imply the advantage with the lens weight is prominent with long telephoto lenses. Though true this isn't entirely true. Canon RF 70-200/2.8-- 5.75 inches, 2.6 lbs. Lumix 35-100 2/8 4 inches (internal zoom)/ 3/4 pound. Canon RF 24-70 2.8 -- 4.9 inches/ 2 lbs. Lumix 12-35 2.8 5 inches/ < 3/4 pound With depth of field if I want the look of 85mm 2.8 on a full frame in M43, I tune in my 35-100 to 85mm 2.8 and back up. Lastly, why use that antique 4/3 camera? That should be in a museum! I am not a lifelong m43 fan boy. I sold my 6D and 80D along with 3 L lenses and a 120-400 Sigma after trying a M43 5 years ago. To each their own but I love my tiny and solid EM5 mkii, and pro grade in every way EM1 mkii. Like all things in life there are sacrifices but I can swallow all of them. Best wishes!

[@PhotographyOnline]

@ - thanks for your input of mostly valid points. The one I have issue with is the “back up” if you want to use an 85mm lens for a shallow depth of field. As you back up, you increase the depth of field and you also alter the perspective of the subject, so this is certainly not something you should be doing.

[@FierceSleepingDog]

"There are more disadvantages to MFT than advantages".... Ummmmm...whatever... I'll keep shooting with my wonderful MFT cameras and lenses

[@PhotographyOnline]

If you think there are more advantages to MFT other than size and weight, please let us know.

[@FierceSleepingDog]

First off, maybe you should get a current MFT mirrorless camera. What you showed was a Four Thirds 10MP DSLR camera from almost two decades ago. I expect more from a photo site; especially, when comparing sensors in 2025. As to benefits of MFT...size and weight primarily and then cost of gear. Costs of FF bodies and lenses are generally higher than MFT. To me that's important. Additionally, with modern post-processing software issues with sensor noise at higher ISO become less and less of an issue. Finally, most people view photos on phones and computer screens nowadays. A 60MP FF sensor is overkill for 90% of most situations when the photos get reduced to much smaller JPEGs. I get great results with 20MP MFT sensor. That's just my take. Others prefer to shoot FF, APS-C, or medium format for various advantages that they deem important.. That's fine....but I would not go out on a limb and claim that these sensors have disadvantages that outweigh their advantages. I have D850 FF camera. It's a great piece of kit, but I prefer to shoot with my MFT OM-1, E-M1, and Pen cameras. They with a host of good lenses are easier to carry and more fun to shoot with.

[@PhotographyOnline]

@ - the only comparison we did between the small sensor and the larger sensor was DOF. This would be the same regardless whether we used a more modern MFT camera or not. It’s the size of the sensor which dictates the required focal length, which in turn dictates the DOF. This is scientific fact which cannot be challenged or changed. So it’s irrelevant which camera we used - the results would be the same. We also clearly said that FF costs on average twice as much as MFT, so you are just agreeing with our point.

[@FierceSleepingDog]

@@PhotographyOnline I never mentioned DOF, but since you bring it up, I'll say this is not big deal to me (i.e. having more background bokeh) other than when shooting macro where I find the MFT DOF helpful to get more of the subject in the shot. I don't know why you are lecturing me on "scientific fact" when I never brought up DOF or questioned it. I disagreed with your statement that the disadvantages of MFT were more than the advantages. You then you asked me to cite those advantages. I did. So now the tally is: MFT Advantages: size, weight, cost MFT Disadvantages: DOF and IQ.* * Again, DOF cuts both ways depending on your need (portrait vs macro) and modern noise reduction and sharpening in post-proc and the smaller mediums in which people view pictures today negates much of the IQ argument. Looks like 3 to 2 to me in favor of MFT. Done

[@AoyagiAichou]

​@@PhotographyOnline In the video, you mention only the most diminished advantages (now that Sony went full on compactness) whilst "debunking" the DOF advantage (which is fairly niche in itself) by using cropping as a counterargument. Not only it isn't true that most FF cameras are between 40 and 60 (some of the most popular cameras are Nikon Z6 series, A7 series, Canon R6 series - *none* are above 33 Mpx), but did you check how much you need to pay to have roughly the same pixel count at 2x crop? It's a quarter, remember? You'd need a camera with 80 to 100Mpx FF sensor to be on par - and generally speaking these extreme crops are usually quite poor quality for some reason (on any camera). Countering with "you can just crop it" is a bit silly, especially when not factoring in the price of the camera, not to mention a lens with enough resolving power. You could just the same "counter" the size and weight argument. Just buy a 200mm lens and crop to 400mm! As for other advantages, MFT lenses can be a *lot* cheaper than their FF counterparts (no, not equivalents). MFT offers the best stabilisation, for video especially. Mostly though, it's cheaper. Yes, even the G9ii is cheaper than any full frame camera with a similar set of features. I feel like I should add I shoot with MFT and with L mount cameras professionally or regular basis.

[@NikCan66]

Also educational information and so enjoyable

[@metrostills]

My issue with the MFT system is that the cameras are often not much smaller than a FF option. It seems like a real lost opportunity not to have more MFT options that are the size of a Ricoh GRIII.

[@keithhider2170]

The real size advantage of MFT is more in relation to the size and weight of the lenses than the camera bodies.

[@PhotographyOnline]

Which is exactly what we said in the feature

[@raybridges1927]

The micro four thirds camera you used is not micro four thirds. The E510 is a four thirds camera. Newer micro thirds cameras are excellent in low light. I don't agree with anything you said about micro four thirds. If you want more resolution you have 50mp or 80mp high res modes which are excellent. I can easily achieve shallow depth of field with my Olympus kit. You just need to adapt your technique. You skipped most of the advantages of micro four thirds. Having to focus stack landscape images is a real faf and not really required when using micro four thirds. I have won awards with my micro four thirds images all over the World. Regardless of sensor size the skill set of the photographer and familiarity with your gear is more important than sensor size. Next time, use the right kit, not an outdated 10mp dinosaur for your comparison.

[@PhotographyOnline]

The age of the camera is irrelevant when discussing sensor sizes. We simply compared a small sensor to a large sensor to show the DOF change.

[@erickpro]

Cool

[@nigelborrington9232]

You neglected to cover the fact that M4/3 is the king of Image stabilization and video production ( smaller sensor's create less heat), and many other technologies that are head and shoulders above the other systems ! but maybe this is the reason you selected a 4/3 (Not M4/3!) camera from 2007 that had none of these development in it - so you could avoid addressing them maybe - just maybe ?? I have been enjoying Digital photography since getting a Nikon D100 , many years ago - in the years since I have used (M4/3,APsC and full frame) each of these systems has their strengths! but Micro four thirds is without a doubt the most usable and flexible system! you can take them anywhere from the top of mountains the the Sea. The only disadvantage I can see is simply the lengths that reviewers will go to in an attempt to right off this system! why is a puzzle to many including myself ! maybe your being influenced to do so ? Like many have pointed out here, why did you select a 4/3 camera that was released in 2007! to show us the M4/3 system ! and why did you then not put it up against the Nikon D700 or D200 ,released in the same time period? Sorry to BANG ON as you put it !

[@PhotographyOnline]

@@nigelborrington9232 - the comparison was to do with sensor size. What difference would using a more modern camera achieved? Are the sensors bigger or smaller now?!

[@nigelborrington9232]

@@PhotographyOnline My D100 had a Dynamic range of about 9.5 to 10 stops, my D7200 some years back had nearly 14 stops, and the noise levels between the two is a world apart! The current generations of M4/3 have a dynamic range of nearly 13 stops, Dxomarks still years on state that anything above 12 is brilliant for even landscape photography ! and the noise levels are again worlds apart from the sensor in the camera you used ! Don't mean to be to hard! but your point is like saying that a computer CPU from 2007 is the same size as they are now! so what the difference then ?

[@PhotographyOnline]

@ - we didn’t test any dynamic range or noise levels. Were you watching the right show?

[@nigelborrington9232]

@@PhotographyOnline The show I was watching, accused M4/3 owners of "banging on" before you even talked about all the options that are available? did you say this of the owner of APSC or FULL frame cameras? , yet I use and value all three formats ! for many different reasons ! I am a photographer who values all my different kit options, I take time to learn their down sides and their upsides so that I know what kit fits the job at hand ! If this is not what your channel is about then what is it about then ?

[@keithwilson7358]

Big Ben and phone box so many phone box's in parliament square