Small Sensors Suck... Right? (Full Frame vs APS-C vs M43 vs 1in)

[@GrimYak]

Came from apsc, then “upgraded” to full frame. After years of that I found myself in M43 and couldn’t be happier. Olympus has one of the best and sharpest lenses in the market today and in a small package.

[@markhoffman9655]

And the toughest weather sealing in the camera industry!

[@thelemon5069]

@@markhoffman9655 I prefer Pentaxs weather sealing. Not because I've tried Olympus but because I've dropped my Pentax in wet sloppy mud before lol

[@lkat5113]

I did the same with Nikon…had a crop, then went to full-frame, and now back to crop but with a Fuji.

[@pietro-viecelli]

I'm finding myself in the same journey! Not ready to completely ditch my FF yet, however the m43 collection has outgrown the FF stuff already 😅

[@Fuchs85DE]

Same here... And nobody can really see a difference when I show my photos. The Toneh can be had also on M43 as I have the 17 and 25 F1.2 PROs They come very close to the the Nikon 50mm F1.8s.... very close.

[@matthieuzglurg6015]

little correction about the depth of field thing : crop factor doesn't really affect the depth of field. It has an indirect impact on it, but there is much important stuff to consider when trying to figure out where the depth of field even comes from. There is only really 2 factors for depth of field : focus distance and aperture diameter (note I didn't say aperture number). Nope, even the focal length has very little play in this. To keep it simple, the wider the aperture gets, the shallower the DoF gets. And the closest you focus your lens, the shallower your DoF gets as well. practical example : if you have a 50mm f/2 lens, that lens has an aperture of about 25mm. If you want a micro four thirds to match the exact framing and depth of field, you will need to match the angle of view, but you will also need to match the aperture diameter. So angle of view gets matched with a 2.0x crop factor : so 25mm lenses should do the trick. Now if you get a 25mm f/2 (to match the exposure) then you get a DoF that is about twice as deep as the one you had on your full frame camera with your 50mm lens, because now your aperture diameter is not 25mm, but 12.5mm. You need to match the aperture diameter to get the same DoF at the same focus distance, meaning you need a 25mm aperture diameter on your 25mm lens : you need a 25mm f/1.0 But as it stands, the depth of field always comes from the lens and the focusing distance, NEVER from the sensor itself. You can achieve the exact same DoF on a 1" camera as a FF camera using the exact same lens... you will just have to deal with the much tighter framing. Most of the time, you end up taking a step back, but then you're focusing further away, which increases the DoF. In short, you should really think about what lens you're using before even thinking about the sensor size. If you start with the sensor size, you will take the 18,5mm lens as a "50mm equivalent", while it fact it's still very much an 18mm rendering with the angle of view of a 50mmm, and you might end up being dissapointed. The only way the sensor impacts depth of field is because you will need wider lenses with smaller aperture diameters (again, not f numbers).

[@tdatsdla]

@@matthieuzglurg6015 I was hoping somebody commented about this. Great information!

[@viktorpaulsen627]

Exactly. So few people understand this.

[@Joh146]

I should make it dependent on a lens which system I want to use? Yes, professionals can do that to achieve their "picture look". I don't care, I buy a lens with a higher speed and everything is fine. If someone wants to shoot with 85 mm 1.8 on full format, then I shoot with 56 mm 1.4 on APS-c - that's perfectly adequate for my purposes and I save a lot of money, a lot of weight and a lot of size.

[@Joh146]

@@viktorpaulsen627 That only interest full frame users, all others don´t care. They take pictures.

[@matthieuzglurg6015]

@@Joh146 everything when it comes to photography is down to user preference. No need to be pedantic about it. That applies to full frame users mocking crop users for their inferior sensors, that also applies to crop sensor users mocking full frame users for their "more expensive" system. I personally saved a lot of money by going full frame instead of staying with Fuji APS-C. To each their own.

[@anshmahagade349]

I only have three conditions for a camera 1. Working focus 2. Outputs in RAW 3. Doesn't blow up :)

[@genuine0]

In reality, if you do a great job while taking your picture, you would hardly need any post-processing. Raw files are huge and sometimes heavier to work with, they can boggle your computer or whatever device you use. The idea is to try and get your images right the first time

[@anshmahagade349]

@@genuine0 your point stands, but my camera did blow up though :'(

[@sebastianhanichen8516]

I'd like to add a viewfinder to your list.

[@keeganvanluven5978]

Shit, stay away from sony

[@vivvar2000]

& interchangable lenses

[@marzios8075]

As you said, the most important decision factor is the type of photography you mainly do. For exanple bulk and weight is very important if you are a travel photographer.

[@velvetvideo]

Some of the MFT lenses weigh as much as full frame... So it's less of factor sometimes.

[@jockturner1547]

@@velvetvideo that’s pretty much only the Lumix 10-25 and 25-50 f1.7 lenses and you really only use those if you’re trying to get close to the dof of full frame. This comment is nullified if you’re prioritising size and weight, which is where M4/3 has a sizeable advantage over full frame. As someone who owns both and uses both for different use cases m4/3 is significantly smaller and makes it fantastic for travel and adventure work. My 12-35 f2.8 is less that half the weight and size as my full frame sigma 24-70 f2.8 and don’t even start on the 35-100 vs 70-200. The biggest difference you’ll find is in super telephotos my 100-400 on full frame is bigger than my 100-400 on M4/3, it’s actually smaller than most 70-200 f2.8 FF lenses but my M4/3 is better built than my full frame version and also gives the equivalent FoV of 200-800 compared to full frame. To get a 200-800 not only would I be looking at thousands of dollars but I’d also would be considerably bigger and heavier meaning I wouldn’t be able to walk around as easily or handhold as easily.

[@PavelR2]

@@jockturner1547 Equivalent lenses are equally big / heavy for FF and crop sensor. Especially longer FL does not provide any advantage for design to get smaller lens size due to need to cover smaller image circle. Comparing 2.8 lens for both sensor sizes is nonsense, because bigger sensor with the same F number produce cleaner result due the bigger photosites. Thus cmparing FF vs m4/3 then you need compare size of 10-25/1.7 to for example 20-70/4 Sony. The only differnce is that nobody produce such slow lenses for fullframe to match already slow lenses for m4/3 (2.8). If you would like to comapre design of 100-400 for m4/3 and FF compare with Canon for RF - Canon is lighter. If you want to compare equivalent FoV then there is no such slow zoom for FF thus the closest offering is Canon 800/11 which is in the same ball park in terms of size/weight. If you compare 300/4 then the size / weight is also almost the same (Olympus vs Canon) and if you would like compare it to equivalent lens -> 600/11 Canon is lighter and smaller (with also worse buld and IQ, but still the best equivalent can be found on the market). + FF does provide the option to use faster lenses and wider lenses and T/S lenses and possibility to use crop with hughres bodies which m4/3 does not offer.

[@charmerci]

@@velvetvideo - I just bought a pricey Olympus MFT body and it's SO much heavier than my Sony APS-C camera!

[@anthonytang5198]

Shot at a wedding recently using a full frame and a m4/3 camera. Anyone who saw the pictures never asked ‘What camera did you use?’ It’s about capturing emotions and telling a story.

[@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet]

Anyone who sees a fantastic nighttime available-light frozen-motion sports picture would never assume it was taken with a 1/2.33" sensor camera.

[@frantisekjavorsky8172]

💀💀💀try to compare full frame vs m43 in low light or higher iso or resolution, its huuuuuuuuge difference even om1 photos looks like from 10 years old DSLR compared to SONY mirrorless for example, its not even question how big difference is it, try to print 1m2 photo from M43 and full frame even 24 max and you see that diference

[@Pawel-rv1ek]

Then use your smartphone, or a potato. ;)

[@erichstocker8358]

Exactly on the mark: "Anyone who saw the pictures never asked 'what camera did you use'" . This is EXACTLY the point we are taking photos not measure sensors.

[@petouser]

@@frantisekjavorsky8172 On the other side, lenses are a stop or so faster on average on M43 vs full frame. You need 2 stops to balance out the different sensor sizes, but still good enough.

[@Joh146]

My sweet spot ist APS-c. More reach with telephoto, more dof with macro, lower costs, lower weight and lower size as fullframe. It´s enough for me for milky way shots and anything else. And for portraits I have some 1.4 lenses. For me full frame is no upgrade. I pay for things which I don´t care, and carry things that are bigger and heavier. But that´s my point of view, others can see this totally opposite.

[@jeffchastain2977]

I take pictures for a few different reasons and my Sony a6700 and accompanying lenses are important, but not my first choice for printed pictures usually, For magazine publication, it's fine. But for image files that will eventually be prints? I have my Leica Q3 or my Nikon d800 full frames that will produce very large, very detailed prints. Different tools for different end results.

[@Vicky-il5yv]

@Joh146 which 1.4 lens you use in your apsc, sigma ones?

[@mrdubert9782]

I have been using M43 for about 15 years now. Today I bought my first full frame camera. The Sony a7c ii with the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 G2. I am very impressed by the image quality of this combo and how far it can be pushed in Lightroom. That being said, I will never sell my Lumix GX8. Still absolutely love this thing. I will keep using it for tele (full frame tele is just too large and expensive for me) and also just for fun. Btw, I guessed right without cheating.

[@Pian]

@@mrdubert9782 I also done the same. I use a7ii and a6500 but when shooting sport, I use a6500 because it can reach further.

[@miklosnemeth8566]

GX8 was a dream camera for those who loved tilt up EVF. I've just purchased the S9, and the only thing I am missing is the tiltup EVF from GX8.

[@Cthames123]

Hope you are enjoying all the full frame goodness that the A7C ii has to offer. Didn't you have concerns over having to get all new lenses for your new Sony E-mount system, because they aren't compatible with Panasonic/Lumix's L-mount? A question to the micro 4/3 shooters is on the crop that is introduced when shooting handheld stabilized 4K video. While many manufacturers offer good stabilization in 4K video, the crop, which decreases the field of view, seems to be an earmark of just about every MFT camera I've seen in my limited research. What is the GX8 crop and stabilization like vs the A7C ii in 4K stabilized video?

[@djmouglie]

Hmm I have the G9 mk II and there is not any crop unless I activate it. The stabe is great without crop but of course the crop is cool to have if I want to be moving around while filming. It's one of the strong points of MFT. My Canon R5 is not as good.

[@marcus_burk]

Thank you for this! Owning a range of M43 equipment I was lurking into the APS-C or even FF lines... and now realized I am completely fine and should shoot more pictures, instead of buying new gear. Especially your large printouts and the hint with AI noise reduction opened my eyes!

[@angelorenna]

I have been shooting at events and ceremonies since fifteen years. I’ve been using fullframe, apsc and now micro4/3 since a couple of years. I have always printed albums (from Saal) and no customer has ever complained about the quality. I don’t look at the photos on the monitor 100% and I don’t worry about the noise. In print it counts for little.

[@MinoltaCamera]

One of the best videos I ever seen on the photography community. Thank you

[@user-le8ul4nr5t]

µ4/3's name is actually totally unrelated from the aspect ratio. µ4/3 takes it's name from the older 4/3 DSLR mount, just micro because of the shorter flange distance. That standard does not specify any aspect ratio only a diagonal size, so a 4/3 sensor can be 3:2 as long as it's around 22mm in diagonal. 4/3 stands for 4/3", but the sensor isn't 4/3", it's from an even older standard for video camera tubes where a sensor that size would need a 4/3" glass tube. TL;DR µ4/3 naming is cursed.

[@Mikri90]

And also isn't it called micro FOUR THIRDS? That pretty much indicates that it's not about the aspect ratio, since if would then be micro four by three or something like that. And btw regarding the video camera tubes, isn't that also how the so called 1inch sensor also got its name?

[@oneeyedphotographer]

@@Mikri90 Micro four thirds cameras use the same sized sensors as four thirds.

[@Mikri90]

@@oneeyedphotographer I'm sorry, I don't understand what are you correcting me on. I was just point out that the name is FOUR THIRDS and not FOUR by THREE which it would have been if it was about the aspect ratio.

[@sietsewolters6652]

Micro Four Thirds is the name of an official registered trademark. Many companies are contributing to this open format. Well, as long as they pay I suppose. The name µ43 is something that is made up by some enthousiast at the internet, but none of the companies involved actually uses this. It's MFT if they want something shorter. There are many different sensor sizes. Full frame, APS-C and 1-inch sensors have an aspect ratio of 3:2. All the others, including the ones for medium format have an aspect ratio of 4:3. Many think that Micro Four Thirds derives from the aspect ratio, but it comes from the old tv-industry. It means 4/3 of an inch but does not relate to 4/3 of an inch at all. At least not as far as it concerns the measurements of the sensor. We'd better use millimeters.

[@palmerino1965]

Comunque amo la proporzione 4/3. Sono anche felice che viene usata anche nei sensori più piccoli. Quando stampavo matrimoni usavo il formato 30x40cm negli album libri, che trovo più godibile in una foto verticale. Tra l'altro con soli 5mp della Olympus E-1, avevo prestazioni superiori della pellicola 35mm che usavo in precedenza.

[@noctivagance_imagery]

I would point out that noise reduction can't bring details or tonality back. I shot M43 for concerts for a year just for the fun of it, and the images were "fine" but significantly and noticeably worse than FF or apsc because the tonality falls apart at high isos with m43. You can noise reduce, but then it just looks like a flat image with no detail or contrast.

[@viktordoszpot9599]

The 25mm 1.7 lumix lens is famous for focus shifting. Try the Leica 25mm 1.4 (I or II version) if you can. It's very sharp, and focuses better.

[@bailingo]

Came here to make sure someone mentioned the lumix 25mm's infamy. Has some issues with sharpness and of course focus shift. Massive reason why I have the Lumix 20mm 1.7 instead. A perfect pancake lens!

[@Paul_anderson_creative]

Yep.. had a GX9, loved it... Had 2 x 25mm lenses.. BOTH were returned, so lacking in sharpness..🤷‍♂️

[@metphmet]

@@bailingo The Lumix 25mm f1.7 is actually a sharp lens . There is a way to overcome the focus shift issue.

[@sam_9228]

I love the Pana Leica 25mm f/1.4 ❤️ Best lens ever

[@Photo0021]

12:17 Because this 25mm was my most used lens for years on my GX85 I'm too familiar with this lol. It's not a very sharp lens, singlehandedly got me to switch to Full Frame thinking the sensor was the issue but clearly there are some sharp AF lenses around.

[@samohara5187]

I've used it and it was fine for video, but there was a noticeable jump in IQ when switching to the PL 25mm f1.4. I'd say it's definitely worth the extra you'd pay (which isn't huge if you buy used).

[@ej_tech]

I didn't even notice it in my personal shots. The Lumix 25mm 1.7 got the shallow depth of field, extra stops of brightness, and 50mm equivalent FOV. My only "complaint" about this lens is the size. It's bigger than the 12-32 pancake kit lens and makes my GX85 kinda front heavy so I ended up not using it as much.

[@mbvglider]

The Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 was supposed to be a cheap nifty fifty so I think it just wasn’t ever meant to be that good. But you have to remember how cheap it was. You could easily get it for $150 new on sale ($149 right now), or like $100 used. Literally every other 25mm lens is much better, but they’re also much more expensive. Olympus 25mm f/1.8 and the PL 25mm f/1.4 were much better but 2-3x as expensive.

[@elzafir]

@@ej_tech The Olympus 25mm f/1.8 is much smaller, better in quality and if you can find one in black, it'll perfectly match the GX85/95. It cost used as much as a brand new Lumix, though.

[@donalda760]

In my research of a fast prime for my G9, I have found many others that concluded the 25mm F1.7 is just not sharp. So perhaps it was not the best choice for this comparison, but does demonstrate the importance of good glass.

[@comeraczy2483]

Thanks a lot for this great video. At 12:50, I think that you are giving the best summary: it's about the lens, more than about the sensor. For those who are interested, there is a recipe to produce on a crop sensor images that are identical to full frame images (with native lenses that have the correct image circle for the sensor): on the crop sensor, divide both the focal length and the f-number by the crop factor, use the same shutter speed, and set both cameras to auto ISO (without auto ISO, on the crop sensor, divide the ISO by the square of the crop factor: 2.6 for Canon APS-C, 4 for micro four third). This recipe is useful to compare the lens selection between two camera systems, for a specific genre of photography. For instance, for "budget" wildlife, the lens of choice for full frame would typically be a super-telephoto zoom at 600mm/f-6.3 on the long end - in a price range of $1000-2000. On Micro four third, this would be equivalent to 300mm/f-3.2- and there isn't a great selection there - everything under $2000 is one or two stops slower (doesn't mean it's bad, just that there will be important trade-offs).

[@jamcloudberry9390]

Can tell a lot of work went into this video. It was a really fun watch. I just finished up a trip to Hong Kong and there were many people carrying compact crop sensor cameras. Mostly Sony and Canon bodies with some Fuji. I think I saw more people carrying film cameras than I saw full frame bodies lol. Crop sensors are still so convenient for travel photography.

[@ericplatt6884]

Excellent rundown across that minefield of parameters having to do with sensor size. After 50 years of doing photography, I settled on Micro 4/3, and I’m really enjoying it.

[@9Mtikcus]

There is a sweet spot for most types of photography, however you can do them all on most size sensors. APS-C is my sweet spot, for portraiture an F/1.4 lens is shallow enough (at least for pro work where you need both the eye and nose in focus) , faster than that for artistic use, most of the time I stop down to F/2.8 or F/4 for portraiture work whether I'm using Full frame or APSC If i was video first, I'd probably consider the M43 system, smaller sensors, faster readout speeds (if all things are equal), same for wildlife photography

[@lucasvivante8988]

Smaller sensor don't have faster readout speed. The read speed is determined by the number of pixel and the power of the processor, often limited by the way the sonsors's constructor made it

[@9Mtikcus]

@@lucasvivante8988 hence all things being equal. If same sensor technology and processing power, it takes less time to read a smaller sensor

[@lucasvivante8988]

@@9Mtikcus nope... It's the quantity of pixel not the size of them. The readout is the time it gets to read the pixel and to process it. It has nothing to do with the size of the pixel. Low pixel cameras as sony a7s3 has amazing readout (hence why it can record 4k120p) and it's full frame. High pixel camera as sony a74 has much more limited readout (does not record 4k120) and it's full frame too.

[@9Mtikcus]

@@lucasvivante8988 if all things are equal... That includes pixel size. But also on smaller sensor cameras you can get more advanced sensors at a lower price point $2000 OM1 and $2500 Fuji XH2s for example both of which have much faster readouts compared to similar price full frame options. I'd link you to science that proves MP number is equal the smaller area reads faster. If same technology But I can't be bothered , so I'll politely just say I disagree with you.

[@echobenav8]

Very nice and informative comparison! Thanks for taking all the time to produce this. Your results prove that a normal viewing distances, megapixels really don't matter. I'm always amazed when I pull up old images shot on Nikon D1 on a 65" 4k tv. You'd never know they were a mere 2.7mp.

[@TomCalton]

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed the view and thanks for the comment 😁

[@skfineshriber]

I’ve owned MFT, APS-C and FF Panasonic and Canon cameras. My favorite so far is the LUMIX G9. Best IQ, LUMIX S5. I sometimes use both at the same event or model shoot, and usually I don’t even notice which image came from which camera, especially under 1600 ISO. For me, APS-C is the odd man out, because if you want the pro lenses they’re usually full frame, big and expensive, so you might as well have a FF camera. With MFT, I have IQ that is VERY close to most APS-C cameras, but my lenses are much smaller, lighter and less expensive. Great explanation video, BTW. One quibble is the statement that DOF depends on sensor size, but for the purposes of this video it probably wasn’t worth pointing out the caveats about distance to subject and angle of view, complicating the explanation. 👍👏🙏

[@djmouglie]

Thank you for making this video!! Very well made and organized and paced. A joy to watch.

[@philippedugout2278]

I use an Em1 M3, XE 4, A7 iv and Leica Q3....all have their pros and cons, i print up to 60 cms and no issue at all, specially if you use pure raw 4

[@LenMetcalf]

I love small sensor cameras. I love this extra depth of field and use it to my advantage all the time. I am so tired of writer’s writing off micro four thirds as being irrelevant or dead. So I really appreciate this. It’s the small sensor advantage. And just one of the many benefits. Thanks.

[@djmouglie]

It's not dead, but it is a small marked. I love my MFT gear and have expensive lenses, so I want it to do great, but I can understand it's a hard sell to new users when full frame lenses and body's are so small now.

[@breadandcircuses5644]

I bought the APS-C Sony a6700 this spring, mainly because of price, quality and the already vast and ever growing number of high quality lenses. I do street and wildlife photography. For the street the small body with a small high quality lense is just as great as the crop-factor on a not so big tele for wildlife. All I need to keep in mind is favouring aperture over focal-length.

[@norskradiofabrikk]

One of the honest and balanced views on this subject on YT. Thanks!

[@madfinntech]

If you do video work with fast pans or action, full-frame sensors generally have lower reading of the sensor and result in way more rolling shutter than APS-C or M4/3 sensors.

[@JettyDeke]

I shoot full frame, and I’ve considered going to APSC and this is going to help finalize that decision.

For me m43 is the limit. After decades of using them all i find 1-inch sensors do just have lower dynamic range and look really gritty, by the time you reach m43 though its gets to “enough” for me. That said i currently only own full frame and apsc.

[@TechnoBabble]

Larger sensors with the same size pixels will still produce less overall noise across the image at a given ISO setting. By your logic the A7R V and a6700 should produce identical levels of noise, but if you compare them that's clearly not the case. The A7R V is about a stop ahead in noise performance at each ISO, as would make sense given it's sensor having about 2.25x the area of the a6700's sensor. Smaller pixels individually do have a lower signal to noise ratio, but since a larger sensor would have more of said pixels the total SNR of the final image will still be better than a smaller sensor with the same sized pixels. When comparing sensor's of similar technology levels, the only thing that effects noise is the total amount of light hitting the sensor.

[@lukazupie7220]

I am not sure about “the only thing”, but it is certainly BY FAR the most important factor.

[@genuine0]

As much as I enjoyed this video, I have to say, please try and allow the natural pauses in the video, because it will enable us to absorb the information more easily, those natural "breathing" pauses are crucial for human brains to process the information, otherwise, we will get bored and automatically switch off, this is a small piece of advice, you are still free to do what you want, I know, the argument is to shorten the video, but it's counterproductive, I hope you don't take it as a criticism but just as constructive criticism. The video was great.

[@AlexButler10]

Trouble is when you stop taking landscapes then the comparison is put on its head. Iv got all the sensor sizes and the full frame is far cheaper than the other systems for the equivalent dof. Weird as that is, canon L lenses are only a couple hundred now and a 5d one to three is 100-300. My fav is the original 5d, next is the Fuji’s 😋

[@andystiller3793]

I use micro four thirds and Sony full frame and most of the time I can't see much difference. Even in low light there's not much. Mainly because of how much I want in focus. Your comment about the lens is probably the most important. I use Olympus 25mm and the Sony 50mm and in many ways the Olympus lens is better and produces nicer images than the Sony (it's also more expensive).

[@jumpmansz]

Olympus and Sony ff user here- if I’m taking photos of people in daylight I’m using the Olympus 10 times out of 10. For low light and videos the Sony is far superior tho

[@manuelsuazo1125]

@@jumpmansz I bought a bright star, 35 MM f0.95, for my G95, it was 129 dollars at alliexpress on sale for father's day. try it if you are not afraid of manual lenses, to try it quickly leave it on automatic.

[@andystiller3793]

@@jumpmansz I do the same. For my circumstance they are close but the Sony wins. I think it's the lens that lets the Sony down.

[@mbvglider]

I mean isn’t the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 way more expensive than the Sony 50mm f/1.8? The Olympus is a really good lens, very well corrected, fast focusing, and well built. The Sony is honestly poopy. You wouldn’t be saying this if you had one of the good 50s out there.

[@andystiller3793]

@@mbvglider exactly. Used the Olympus 25mm was about 1.5 times the cost of the Sony 50mm used. The other difference for my use is I can use the MFT camera at a much wider aperture, a slower shutter speed and over 2 stops lower ISO. Closing the gap between systems. If I was photographing nighttime events like I used to the Sony would be much better than the Olympus.

[@andresgonzalezcerda7635]

Excellent video!!. Mate the camera and marry the lens. Size, and lens quality have found best combination on M/43 sistem. ( for my needs wich are streets photography by now)

[@tizio54]

Macro photography is also and area where crop sensors have a physical advantage (higher magnification ratio, more depth of field) over larger sensors. OM system has capitalised on this with their recently released 90mm f3.5 Pro macro lens.

[@TomCalton]

Great point, thanks for sharing 👌🏻

[@MO-hq4iz]

It's an error to say "crop sensor" based on the image circle because it's not technically cropping the image circle itself. A 50mm lens made for micro four-thirds (m43) has a much smaller image circle compared to a full-frame (FF) lens. The "crop" refers to the sensor size, which captures part of the projected image, it's not a cropping of the actual image circle which varies based on the lens's optimized design. The crop factor affects more than just the field of view. It also influences the effective f-stop, impacting depth of field and noise performance. A smaller sensor typically has less light-gathering ability, which can lead to more noise at higher ISOs, due to differences in the signal-to-noise ratio. This is why it's important to adjust the aperture in relation to the crop factor when considering the total exposure, image quality, and depth of field.

[@konstantinjirecek970]

If You are using camera for documentation - small sensor and hence deeper depth of field may be more useful than cameras with large sensors.

[@barrylyon6074]

yes,

[@ntdglobal2510]

12:45 The bad image quality of 25mm lens is due to focus shift at f/2.8. You should try to compare it at f/1.8 or > f/5.6.

[@876gas]

@@ntdglobal2510 sold my 25 f1.7 because of the focus shift. It's very unreliable. One moment it's golden the next it's garbage.

[@SomeDudeSomewhere]

I was all about full-frame until I tried a 2018 Fuji X-T3 (aps-c sensor) and I fell in love. 15 years ago the difference between full frame and aps-c was huge. Not anymore. The depth of field difference is still there though, so I matched the X-T3 with a TTArtisan 35mm f0.95 lens (53mm f1.4 full frame equivalent for the field of view and depth of field) and now I'm a happy man. But it's hard to find great lenses at such apertures (especially if you want autofocus), so if you're all about shallow depth of field, with a full frame body you'll find much more lenses for that, but be ready to pay through the nose!

[@Hrochnick]

I've got that exact M43 camera and lens and I've got some great sharp images with it, they seem so vibrant and alive, you can almost hear them ping. It's one of my favourites, particularly for portraits. I think you might have a dodgy one!

[@Random__Alex]

I have a FF and M43 camera. I dont care about the crop factor but my full frame camera produces photos with much much more dynamic range amd details!

[@hauke3644]

While I could endlessly contribute to this discussion, I am very happy with how you presented the most important questions and draw the conclusions. When I learned photography, it was just normal that different systems such as 35mm, medium and large formats had different focal lengths for the same angle of view and also that the use cases where just different. And nobody talked about a “crop factor”. But while in that analog world the film material was the same for all formats and where only differentiated by size, sensors of different sizes usually have different pixel sizes, so that the overall size is only on parameter.

[@JoshCameron]

Great video mate! I've been wanting a rundown like this for a while. I think people often put too much weight on the sensor size. Understandably, you'll get better lowlight, better subject separation etc, but I'm not someone who particularly cares about bokehliciousness 24/7

[@anta40]

I'm aware shooting portrait at wide open all the time feels like one-trick pony. But man... the larger sensor bokeh is damn tasty. My standard is Pentax 67's 105/2.4. Of course we don't have a true digital 6x7 system. Perhaps closest thing is 65/1.4 on Fuji GFX. In general, no wonder lots of portrait shooters prefer larger image sensor.

[@JerryOhh]

2:48 Finally, now I understand the sensor/image crop base on the side, and thankyou so much for a clear explanation.

[@erichstocker8358]

The key to photographs isn't what is measured by equipment but by the photos that are taken. I think you have the right approach

[@wekkimeif7720]

I went recently just from Nikon D3400 asp-c to Nikon Z5 full frame. Have to say I am a lot more happier with Z5 thanks to better low light performance and having image stabilization. Also I like to have the wider view of Full Frame on architecture and landscape photography. Photo that I took at 9 pm in dark hand held looks as good as photo taken in daylight with D3400

[@DigiDriftZone]

ISO also scales just like crop factor, you need to compare equivalents. To get the same light sensitivity it's 640 on full frame, is 280 on APS-C is 160 on MFT. 12,800 on full frame is 5,700 on APS-C is 3,200 on MFT - the formula is Multiply ISO by crop factor squared. Same goes for lens matching, etc. So actually if you get a 16mm f/1.4 lens on APS-C with ISO300 , you will get very similar results (similar noise too) as 24mm f/2.0 ISO640 on full frame. The advantage of full frame comes when you have those amazing f/1.4 primes, there are no f/0.7 primes for MFT to match it. This is why often professionals buy the lens before the camera :)

[@TechnoBabble]

This is something a lot of enthusiasts/hobbyists that use smaller sensor cameras don't understand. The reason why the overwhelming majority of pros shoot on full frame is because of the noise performance and lenses available. You can't get an f/1.4 zoom lens for MFT to match the fairly common f/2.8 zooms on full frame. Even f/4 zooms on FF outclass nearly everything on MFT, other than the two Panasonic f/1.7 zooms that have short ranges.

[@richardfink7666]

....and there is no 300-1200/ 6.3 for ff!

[@TechnoBabble]

@@richardfink7666 Nor is there such an equivalent for MFT cameras. If you think otherwise you are misinformed and have fallen for the main dishonest marketing point of MFT.

[@richardfink7666]

@@TechnoBabble As far as I`m concerned the angle of view of a 300-1200mm/6.3 for ff....there`s no such thing! Btw. You can quickly adapt any lens to mft camera. With a speedboster you can do it from aperture 4 to aperture 2.8 with the same angle of view!

[@TechnoBabble]

@@richardfink7666 Like I said, if you think there is an equivalent to a full frame 300-1200mm f/6.3 on MFT you are extremely misinformed and have fallen for the dishonest MFT marketing, mainly done by Olympus. You don't get to magically cheat physics by using a smaller sensor.

[@raydavies3342]

Excellent video! A complicated subject explained clearly.

[@gerryhardman9060]

I’m glad you included the Nikon J5 because I have that camera and I can’t believe how sharp that little 18.5 mm lens is and how big you can blow it up on the back screen and still see really good detail. What a great comparison, especially for all those Pixel peepers out there that figure that their 45 megapixel cameras just so much better than anything else. Basically that 20 megapixel sensor is like taking a 45 or 50 megapixel camera sensor and cropping it down to 1 inch and that would be the size of your pixels. And I can’t believe you printed all these because that’s where you really see a difference if any. And prints are to be viewed from a normal distance. I had this experience years ago where I saw a 2‘ x 3‘ picture taken by a Nikon D 70 which is a six megapixel sensor. I was really impressed. Thanks for sharing. Regards, Gerry.

[@RICH_Photography]

The lumix 25mm 1.7 is quite terrible looking at the available lenses now. I compared the lumix 25 1.7 vs the Sigma 30 1.4 and got the same results from the LUMIX. So glad to see someone understands the positives about crop sensor. Crop sensor all the way 👍

[@RandumbTech]

You got me. 🤪 I paused when looking at the 4 images and made my guesses. Then you put up the WRONG labels and I'm screaming at my screen saying "no f'n way!!" Then I went back and looked at the lenses you chose and was like, I think he screwed up. Clever, clever Tom 🤣

[@trulsdirio]

As someone who learned photography on a Fujifilm Bridge Camera and later on a Canon EOS 1000D. the took a long hiatus until I fell in love with film photography around 2019, just to switch back to digital, due to health reasons (don't become chronically ill, children, it really isn't fun lol) I do feel that my current M43 sensor is still outperforming most common film stocks in terms of resolution and detail, is on par in terms of dynamic range and has less noise at similar ISO values. So in a sense crop sensor digital is what 35mm was for film, the format that gives good enough image quality, a good price to performance value and a portable overall system. Full frame digital fits more in line with medium format film, giving you even better quality, but at a size and price penalty for the whole system. Also, get the best glass you can and then the best body for that glass you can still afford afterwards! Glass is so damn important! Which was why I went for an Olympus E-M1 II in the end, the 45mm 1.8 is really nice, the 12.40mm 2.8 absolutely amazing!

[@palmerino1965]

Fotografavo i matrimoni con la pellicola 35mm per avere un sistema leggero, veloce e con maggiore possibilità di scatti, rispetto alla pellicola medio formato. Nel 2004 sono passati al digitale, preferendo il formato 4/3: la reflex Olympus E-1 mi regalava risultati migliori con la possiblità di salire anche ad 800 iso senza tanti problemi ed era piacevole poter usare diaframmi più aperti pur avendo la medesima profondità di campo con la pellicola 35mm, oggi full-frame. Questo significa che potevo scattare spesso ad f:2,8 o poco più, invece di f:5,6. Nei fatti, gli 800 iso digitali erano equivalenti alla pellicola da 3.200 iso, operativamente. 🤔 Nel reportage occorre anche descrivere l'ambiente: nessuna coppia di sposi sceglie una grande stampa dove lei è nitida e lo sposo, solo perché leggermente spostato dal piano di messa a fuoco, è sfuocato. Poi amavo stampare nel formato 30x40cm invece del 30x45 come ero costretto con la pellicola 35mm. Per questo, mai ho sentito l'esisgenza di investire nei formati maggiori: il 4/3 e quindi il micro 4/3, sono l'ideale per le mie reali esigenze.

[@gozoomdaddy]

Just moved back to 4/3 for most all of my shooting (need to learn your settings for low light, not that bad on 4/3 up to 6400) I do still have a Fuji and Pentax K-1 !! BUT features on the G9 with good glass makes for a great shooting experience. I do sell prints and have no issue with 4/3 !!

[@jmoffitt36]

I mostly shoot Micro 4/3 and new lenses are reasonable price. On the used Market Canon EF (Full Frame) and EF-M (APS-C) can be really cheap. You can use EF lens on APS-C. If you’re on a tight budget go with an older Canon APS-C. Really any Camera from the last 10-15 years will take great pictures. Especially if you’re shooting in normal lighting condition.

[@ronaldlee3537]

For me, I have standardized on APS-C as the camera of choice when I need maximum quality. I also used the Sony 1" sensor when the circumstances dictate and portability is a must. I have recently discovered the Olympus TG-7 with it's 1 2/3" sensor. The TG-7 can do about 90% what my bigger and heavier APS-C cameras can do, but I can put the entire set up in my pockets(admittedly, fairly large pockets). And the TG-7 can do macro with a few light-weight plastic attachments.

[@stmsaiya]

I think it is great to own 3 cameras full frame apsc mft. Full frame for wedding and portrait and low light and apsc for landscape portrait wedding,street photography . M4/3 for street photography wildlife,landscape and macro

[@raulal00]

😂 a 1" for landscape, macro and travel, and a 1/2.3 for macro, street, candid and retro 😂😂

[@thane5_3d]

About that depth of field comparison - Is a small sensor actually "better" at getting high depth of field images? Wouldn't a full frame camera at f/8 and high ISO still perform easily as good as a small sensor camera wide open, simply due to the larger sensor?

[@batuhancokmar7330]

Short answer is yes, long answer is mostly yes but its complicated and not directly due to reason you might think; If you have a 2x crop factor between two sensors, then you need to stop down aperture by 2x to get same DOF. "25mm f/4 ISO100" will directly translate to "50mm f/8 ISO400" if exposed correctly. 2x Crop factor also means sensor area is 2^2=4 times as large, assuming MP count is the same this would mean pixels (or subpixels) themselves have 4x area. Now if everything had scaled equally, 4x pixel size means 2stops worth more light gathering, but we already lost 2 stops of light intensity due to lower aperture, so it would balance it out and we'd get exact same quality. However everything inside a CMOS sensor does not need to scale equally. There are complex circuitry required to 1- read the potential well voltage, 2- apply analog gain and 3- do analog-digtal conversions. These areas are not small, on cell phone sensors (BSI and stacked) they occuppy roughly the same area as photodiodes themselves. However when pixels get bigger, readout circuitry don't NEED to be bigger. So percentage "wasted" by their area is relatively smaller as the pixels grow in size. When you quadruple pixel size, you can double (instead of quadrupling) this circuitry area to implement a dual gain circuitry and higher quality converters to reduce noise floor. And still get 4,66x bigger (instead of 4x) photowell size to get higher sensitivity to light. (This also broadly explains why lower MP cameras generally have better high ISO performance) Or we can keep pixels at same size, but quadrupple the MP count to increase resolution. Or apply a combination of both. In every case answer is yes, a fullframe will still give better results than a smaller sensor. Difference between an APS-C and a Full frame would be purely an academic comparison, but as we go MFT and below, results will be noticable more and more. Also we have to talk about lens. A fullframe lens at f/8 will have much better resolving power than a M43 lens at f/4. Its a matter of physics, no lens is perfect, smaller the aperture lesser the optical aberrations. However lens argument would work against full frame if aperture needs to below diffraction limit of the fullframe camera to achieve same DOF but somehow its above the limit of smaller sensor camera, in which case there MAY be some extreme edge cases where having large aperture lenses on tiny sensors that MAY work better than full frame.

[@thane5_3d]

@@batuhancokmar7330 Thank you for the comprehensive answer, i've been wondering about these effects for a while.

[@johnnomcjohnno1957]

I noticed a huge difference in dynamic range going to a 1 inch sensor from a 1/2.3 inch sensor. Is this lens or sensor though? Didn't notice any similar change going from 1 inch to APSC. Or dropping back to micro 4/3.

[@calebe16]

This was a very instructive video, specially the printing part. And I would love to learn more about it. My main question is how do you print a bigger image than it's supposed to be using the 300 dpi rule ? For example, a 6000x4000 P sensor (24MP) should only produce a 20x13.3" (~51x34cm)print. What is your method to producing bigger images? reduced dpi, digital enlarging, just click print and let it be free?

[@calebe16]

Also, there is just one correction I would made on what you said. The depth of field is related to focal length (higher FL -> less DF), aperture (higher -> less DF), focus point (closer -> less DF). What bigger sensor does is allowing to focus closer with a longer lens.

[@glennsak]

This is one of the most comprehensive and complete analysis of sensor sizes I've seen. Kudos to you, Mr. Carlton. This must've taken a lot of time and energy to make this happen. P.S. I'm happy to see that my lovely 20mm Lumix was a sharp lens and could compete quite favorably to the larger sensors!

[@stub8213]

Nice video and super interesting results with the 25mm lens. Never owned the Lumix 25mm, but I do have the Leica 25mm f.1.4, which I've never been disappointed by picture quality wise and it stays on my GX80 a lot. The only drawback is the outrageously shaped and sized lens hood which doubles the size of the lens (though it does have a certain vibe to it).

[@AISkillBoost]

I'm curious if a lower-megapixel camera (a7s3/fx3) might perform better in low light than a camera with a larger sensor but many more megapixels/photosites.

[@elpoutre2522]

This is so 2012 photoGraphic KZbin. Brings back memories. Thanks for the time machine subject.

[@rsat9526]

And yet people still debate FF is the best APSC & MFT are for kids.

[@elpoutre2522]

@@rsat9526 i guess maintaining insatisfaction and upgrading from your current camera to a new whatever one is still a thing 🤷‍♂️

[@dougmanck4149]

Wow. So many great points several of which have been confirmed by other pros. Convinced me to stick with APS-C for my type of photography. Sports and travel. Thanks

[@kyleedelbrock5286]

This is a great video and resource. Good work and thanks for putting this together

[@liveinaweorg]

I've used Saal and not ever been disappointed. I'll be sticking to my Olympus EM1 MkII with Olympus Pro lenses and of course my film cameras 😘

[@blackbirdpie217]

Cameras are often compared to the very capable camera in many phones. The I-phone 16 camera sensor is 8x6 mm. But the term "full frame" is just a random size, really. I mean it goes back to the size of 35mm movie film, which really has nothing to do with anything. It's just a random size. Heck there was a day when full frame mean 4x5 inches. 35mm film cameras were called miniature cameras. Go back further, full frame was 8x10 inches. But they're all random dimensions and have absolutely nothing to do with digital cameras, many of today's users have never even loaded a roll of 35 in a camera, so why are we even using that film size as a full frame?

[@Randomthoughts944]

Makes sense.. lets ask this to all manufacturers 😐

[@ZeitouniJad]

I switched from full frame to APSC (fujifilm) and I don’t regret it , sensor technology is developing very fast . Less gear weight is very much needed as I was suffering from neck/back pain.

[@Kishgofu]

this is a fantastic video. Honestly the best I've seen and even though not scientific it is more useful in this artistic format to compare but be open to the discussion. I love that you came clean about the lens being dodgy on the 4/3, it really hit home how important a lens is. Printing them out was an inspired decision because someone like me (who only wants to take beautiful, high-quality pictures of my family and on vacation) can feel good about going for a cheaper, smaller sensor camera and reap all of the rewards you mentioned. I can have a cheap, light-weight camera and buy cheaper, smaller lenses. This is brilliant! Also when you mentioned noise and showed how this is only really affecting low-light situations this means that a small sensor with large aperture lens will do fine in normal daylight conditions without showing noise, benefit from a decent depth of field, and even the photos will be printable (as long as you pay for a good printing service and edit the photos well). sincerely, big thanks for this video!

[@nekitkat]

been thinking about getting a ff camera for some time and tried to convince myself that it’s definitely a good idea just yesterday lmao such a good timing. ty for making videos

[@mynameisnotcory]

I use full frame for low light concert stuff but thats just so when i crop in its not too noisy.

[@jeff5721]

Nice tutorial, but when I think of "small sensor" cameras I'm thinking 1/1.7 or 1/6.3. How do THOSE stack up against the sizes in this video? I'm just curious at what sensor size images really begin to suffer.

[@rocheuro]

larger pixel = less noise, shallower FOV (more booookeh), - full frame is just great for portraits and weddings etc. , 4/3, and 1 inch sensors would be quite perfect for macro and wildlife. APS-C is kinda in the middle. good allrounder. I wouldnt go below 1 inch sensor in size. it's already a bit too small. check good old 5D classic from canon - this camera is true gem. Such an amasing quality from 2008 , 12mpix old but full frame sensor.. it's just amasing. at iso 3200 (it's max) its often cleaner than my current dslr at iso 200 or 400.. insane. this is not only noise and clean.. this is also color depth because of very large pixels.. and also pixel sharpnes.. which is kinda differnt kind of sharpness you used to know... anyway. They're all good for a diffrent use and purpose.

[@goldendoggy8904]

Excellent and informative video. The print comparisons really are the final test showing that any of the sensors can produce great quality images. But ultimately the key to a great photo is the subject matter not sensor size 😊

[@philclint]

I moved from aps-c to full frame. I should have moved to M43. Appreciate the video. I will keep FF it is an excellent camera but will be getting M43 later this year. The point was well made that you need to decide on the purpose. Just to qualify it I went ff for landscape thinking I would never do bird photography - that was my downfall. I have a bridge camera at the moment which is a good tool to test this type of photography without overspending. I do miss my aps-c I might get a cheap one as I still have a couple of lenses. (I do have a ff adapter as well).

[@-grey]

I love the extra depth of smaller sensors, the size of smaller cameras, the extra features they pack in, and basically everything about 1" cameras. The only thing really ever stopping me from just committing is the fear of gain ISO noise, low dynamic range, and digital sharpening over optical IQ. If I found something that hit the sweet spot on those, I'd be a 1" wonder for life

[@ClaudePatrao]

I have the Canon G7X mark iii which has a 1" sensor and a 24-100 full frame equivalent 1.8-2.8 zoom lens. I use it for street and macro photography and shoot in RAW only. Initially I process for noise and optical corrections in DXO photolab and then in LRC . I have never had any issues with dynamic range and noise even upto iso 3200. The sharpness of the G7X is superb. After that I bought the Nikon Z30 which is also a fantastic camera but I still pick up the G7X on my daily walks. My suggestion to you is rent one for a day or two and see if it meets your expectations.

[@ericfernando4296]

Panasonic Dynamic Range boost seems significant enough to bridge the gap between FF and MFT in terms of noise, not enough to have the same quality, but close enough to trail behind FF. I hope more smaller sensor cameras took dual gain readout approach to increase their image quality.

[@mitchellwnorowski6747]

Excellent comparison. I have all but full frame. Color science difference is apparent but all have fabulous resolution. (OM-5, K-70, D60, J4).

[@clonkex]

Micro four thirds all the way! Smaller, cheaper and 90% of what you get from full frame. The main sacrifice is the reduced bokeh, if that's something you care about for your use case. For me, I get plenty of soft backgrounds with the PanaLeica lenses for way less money than equivalent full-frame lenses. My GH5ii is a beast and makes an amazing travel/vlogging camera in combination with a DJI Mic 2. Of course, I'm jealous of the GH7's better autofocus, but I can't afford that thing yet :)

[@TechnoBabble]

The main sacrifice is ~4x the noise at any given ISO. If you're in bright light or controlled situations, smaller sensors can be just fine. But when I'm in an unpredictable or dark lighting situation a FF camera is going to give me objectively better results, since I can't get a 12-35mm f/1.4 or 25mm f/0.7 on MFT.

[@clonkex]

@@TechnoBabble Oh that's true of course. I'm used to even smaller sensors from phones and action cameras, though, so MFT's noise is not even a consideration for me haha

[@sabawadot-com4185]

I had the Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 lens, and the two copies I owned were perfect when purchased. However, at some point, both lenses deteriorated and became very soft with strange out-of-focus rendering. It was almost as if an adhesive came loose on one of the elements, causing it to shift. I was really upset because the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 didn't have the same rendering quality as the Panasonic when it was new. At the time, my cameras were the Panasonic G7 and G9.

[@dgutie8]

Great video! Explained everything very well!!! Most people say you must buy FF for great pics, not true!!

[@anta40]

I think FF is a natural choice if you also shoot with 35mm film. Using those lenses on APSC/MFT gives you crop factor. If not, especially the younger generation, just get APSC or MFT. Overall smaller, more compact system.

[@harrisfogel6992]

As a former Olympus Pro, I had access to all their glass, cameras, etc.. I loved the small size, weight, build quality, and menu system. However, when I had a chance to test the Ricoh GR against the then latest Olympus, it was a bit sharper, much smaller, and better at higher ISOs. Naturally it's a different beast, a fixed prime wide-angle lens, but it quickly replaced my Olympus on shoots around the world. Now, I'm a Sony shooter with an A7 IV. Still, last night I planned to cover the Harris campaign event with Springsteen, Legend, and Obama, with my old 50-200mm four-thirds lens, Micro Four Thirds adapter to a Olympus EM-1. Sure, the performance of the Micro Four-Thirds format sucks at higher ISO, but that lens is fabulous and with Adobe AI Denoise, the images are usable. One important advantage of the EM series is that the sensor had both phase and contrast detection autofocus, thus for the first time, older full-sized Four-Thirds glass autofocus properly. While the adapter allowed older glass with the micro systems, the AF was all but useless. With the EM series, I was delighted to be able to use my old glass again. Olympus' name for it was "Dual Fast AF". What's missing from most reviews is a serious discussion of dynamic range, and my Sony FF sensor, just stomps over every one of my other cameras. With AI Masking, and so much more on the horizon, it's a vital reason to use one system over another. I write about audio products, and think of sensor analysis, as I do audio amplifiers, wattage is only one measure of a system. There are so many other things to consider. As in audio, dynamic range, clipping, noise, all contribute mightily to the quality of reproduction. And the same is true of digital cameras. I was sent the original Olympus EP-1 and EP-2 to work with and review. I always found my images with the supplied Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm f/2.8 Lens soft, and decided to test it against a new version, the 17mm F1.8, the difference was night and day, similar to your results where you swapped lenses. I'd always chalked up the softness and lack of texture to the sensor, but in fact it was the lenses. Interestingly, when I did rigorous tests between the new EM-1 at the time and my beat up EP-2, in many tests the resolution and color reproduction were not as far apart as I imagined. Of course, none of it comes close to the Sony. Lastly, I always drank the Kool-Aid on Olympus glass that it was superb and free of distortion, but I photographed framed artwork in galleries hung with laser levels, so perfectly straight and even, and even the pro glass had terrible barrel distortion, chromatic fringing, vignetting, and you couldn't use Lens Correction with Adobe due to the fact that Four-Thirds lenses have built in opcodes for correction which prevent it. Thus, I discovered that I needed to create a series of presets manually to straighten lines, and correct for vignetting. Now, with AI we are going back and correcting all those images, applying manual lens distortion corrections, AI Denoise, and more. Using the Adobe Labs test chart is a handy way to create presets that correct for lens flaws. Pain, but worth it for critical applications. Keep up the good work.

[@timothykieper]

Nice presentation! If I may suggest one other consideration? When using a 17 mm lens on Micro 4/3 ( as example ) you will effectively get a 34mm results. However, the image will still have the same barrel distortion or pincushioning associated with a wide angle lens?

[@lucasvivante8988]

The distorsion is dependent of the formula of the lens. There are wide lenses with almost to no distrostion (like laowa wide angle) Often distortion is the result of a compromise in the making of a wide for a big sensor. When trying to achieve a smaller image circle, lens builders achieve less distortion without complex optic formula. Lenses made specificaly for small sensors are cheaper and easier to conceive

[@lucasvivante8988]

To add to the answer, if a 17mm shows barrel distortion on a full frame sensor it will show as well on m43. But it's easy to make a 17mm without barrel distortion for a m43 sensor with a small projected image circle.

[@babajaiy8246]

Quality wide angle glass doesn't have barrel distortion or pincushioning. Back in the film only days I got Canons L series 24mm f1.4 for the A1. I had a kodak projector and replaced the stock lens with a leica. Got the best 6ft projection screen I could find. Shot 25 ASA slide film. Absolutely 'perfect' and stunning images with no distortion. Just got an A6700 last year - same thing, got Sonys 15mm g series. Absolutely enjoying viewing the images on an 8k monitor. If you can afford it - always get the best glass you can - you won't have to 'worry' about such issues.

[@ChadWilson]

The medium format folks are going to feel unloved. 😂

[@KevinSaruwatari]

Don't know if it's been mentioned already because there are so many comments but the Panasonic 25mm/f1.7 suffers from significant focus shift (CameraHoarders documented it well in a vid) if your comparison photo was shot stopped down. It's worst between f2.8 and 5.6, I think. Your GX camera should have a setting called "constant preview". With it on the camera will focus with the lens stopped down and you should get a big improvement. Mine was incredibly sharp once I changed the setting.

[@batuhancokmar7330]

Great video, probably the best I've seen on this topic, but isn't the last sentence somewhat contradictory? After defining personal needs (and budget) I'd say sensor size is the very first decision any beginner photographer has to make.

[@miklosnemeth8566]

Not exactly, it is a combination of sensor size, camera price, lens availability and lens prices. I have just recently evaluated all these to choose between Zf vs S9 + Sigma compact primes vs X-T50 + f1.4 Fuji lenses. Eventually, my pick was S9 with the Sigma primes, but the Fuji was a very strong competitor, it took me a week with multiple hands-on sessions in the store to be able to decide.

[@disraelidemon]

It's worth noting that where you do get a consistent saving in size and weight with a smaller format is the lenses. I use both Panasonic Micro 4/3 and Fuji APS-C, and I have a set of primes at 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and 90mm FF equivalents for both. The Micro 4/3 lens set is significantly smaller and lighter than the Fuji set, even though my Panasonic GX8 and Fuji X-Pro 2 bodies are pretty much the same size.

[@TechnoBabble]

Are they truly equivalent though, or do the lenses for APS-C have larger entrance pupils? For example, the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 and the Fuji 35mm f/2 are equivalent lenses in terms of their field of view and entrance pupil size (DoF and light gathering) and they're nearly identical in size and weight.

[@lukazupie7220]

@@TechnoBabble And you can add Sony 50mm 2.5 to this comparison, it is probably no bigger, heavier or more expensive either.😀

[@Deetroiter]

I’ve used pretty much everything and guess what I use the most nowadays? A LUMIX GX85. My leica’s, etc all just sit in their bags. I was ignorant and brushed off the m43 system for a long time. I figured it’ll just look like some photos from a 2004 Nokia phone. One day I saw a sale for the gx85 taking place for the body and two lenses, I figured worst to worst I can return it back. I was blown away when I received and started using it. The size, the lenses are affordable (especially in comparison to the red dot stuff!), and it is FUN. The L monochrome BW profile with the 20mm 1.7? The heavens open up and the angels begin to sing. I know Leica and Panasonic have their alliance and there’s no doubts in my mind that Leica helped develop thay BW profile for Panasonic. It literally looks like any BW picture I’ve ever gotten out of a Leica. Is the lumix gx85 the end all, be all? Of course not. As photographers, we are all on the quest to find the ultimate one camera body. And so far, it doesn’t exist. This lumix sure has become a close choice though! Especially in 2024 with all the cameras and lenses giving a fake, oversharpened look to the pictures, the older sensor from the LUMIX js a real breathe of fresh air with its natural, filmic look to the pics.

[@lookylookie]

Nice vid, I had 2 systems running side by side Sony A73 and Oly om10ii. One day I was in Lightroom cataloguing all my pics and noticed out of all the pics I rated most of them were with Olympus. I decided to invest in just m43 as a result. The bonus is no stupid heavy lenses I have to cart around which in my opinion can sometimes look a bit like… “look how big mine is compared to yours” syndrome 🙄

[@danielx555]

Early on, I bought an APS-C camera and I did all the math to figure out equivalencies and then I realized that it didn't matter. I just needed to figure out what the lens was giving me on the camera I had. I think it could easily be explained to new photographers by saying: "The APS-C camera is going to give you the center of the shot that a full frame would give you, and that's something you should be aware of."

[@DreamCatcher101-6]

I have two things as an amateur. The lenses are way more important than the sensor sizes. And for the printed photos, I think the crispier or not doesn't matter, as long as the size of the printing is good. Because people will have to take a certain distance to enjoy the photos. But overall, thanks for the math😁 and for all the information you put effort to present in your video.

[@EJej-z5g]

Right. Full-frame cameras are unbeatable when it comes to shallow depth of field, an extensive selection of very cheap manual prime lenses (which, while usable on other sensor sizes, effectively crop into telephotos there), and superior low-light performance. It's not just about price or compactness because many APS-C and Micro Four Thirds options are actually more expensive and bulkier. (Still, a pre-owned APS-C with low shutter count is the best bang for the buck among all sensor sizes in 2024). Also, you can scale down the sensor size, but you can't scale down the light waves, which is why the practical aperture is limited on both sides for smaller sensors (although ND filters and electronic shutters help mitigate this). Anyway, taking print size and viewing distance into consideration is an excellent point. It's a much more sensible way to evaluate the quality of your images than pixel-peeping. Even some slightly noisy or slightly out-of-focus smartphone pictures can still look perfectly detailed when printed at 10x15 cm or shared in a social media post.

[@Danny_Boel]

Back in the day I was drooling over the Nikon 1 V1 but it was way out of my reach. Last week I finally got one second hand, together with the 10-30 lens and the flash. I was pleasantly surprised by the image quality and color rendition of this old 10 MP sensor. and the lens turns out to have some limited macro capabilities as well

[@wtfiswiththosehandles]

I've been using Canon 5D for the past 16 years almost exclusively and let me tell you - the best camera is the one you have with you. I missed a lot of opportunities because I didn't feel like lugging the heavy lens and DSLR around. Which is why I am here. My love for full frame is all but gone by now, and I am looking to buy a small m4/3 camera with equally small 2 primes and a zoom lens. Maybe I won't like it, maybe the DOF will not be something to my liking... But it just makes me sad, that I don't take as many photos as before just because sometimes it's too much of a hassle with a FF camera.

I like the panasonic lumix GX9

[@tommylundmark8175]

Been shooting m43 since 2012 and it's more than enough for my photographic needs. One thing that's almost never mentioned in these types of videos is image compression. My favorite lens is the excellent Sigma 56mm 1.4 (112mm equivalent) - if compared to a shot at 110mm on a full frame camera, the foreground and background on the fullframe image would be pushed closer to each other. Same goes with the Sigma 30mm I have - it gives a 60mm field of view but images shot with it have lot more wideangle look (background and foreground pushed away from each other) compared to a proper 60mm lens on full frame. Also, a smaller sensor means it's easier to design a lens with good corner to corner sharpness. A razor sharp lens both in centre and corner of the image on full frame are usually big, bulky and costs a fortune.

[@sarahmanana5614]

this was amazingly geeky 🥰 all the numbers recurring and also shapes 🤩

[@Fuallz]

This has been really informative.👍 Have been wondering about how big of a difference too.

[@VoidedTea]

Ideally, a photographer develops a personal style and works with a camera format that compliments it. But a photographer who uses several camera types will often find that his very perception changes when he is carrying a small camera instead of a large one, and vise versa. Knowing the characteristics of each camera type can help us appreciate its advantages, while coping successfully with its drawbacks. I urge, again, avoiding a common illusion that creative work depends on equipment alone, it is easy to confuse the hope for accomplishment with the desire to possess superior instruments. It is nonetheless true that quality is an important criterion in evaluating camera equipment, as a re durability and function. Inferior equipment will prove to be a false economy in the long run. As his work evolves, the photographer should plan to alter and refine his equipment to meet changing requirements. Ideally, the photographer will choose basic equipment of adequate quality, with nothing that is inessential. It is certainly preferable to work from simple equipment up, as needs dictate, than to overbuy equipment at first. Starting with basic equipment allows the photographer to develop a full understanding of the capabilities of each unit before advancing to other instruments. Too many people merely do what they are told to do. The greatest satisfaction derives from the realization of your individual potential, perceiving something in your own way and expressing it through adequate understanding of your tools. Take advantage of everything, be dominated by nothing except your own convictions. Do not lose sight of the essential importance of craft, every worthwhile human endeavor depends on the highest level of concentration and mastery of basic tools. The next time you pickup a camera, think of it not as an inflexible and automatic robot, but as a flexible instrument which you must understand to properly use. An electronic and optical miracle creates nothing on its own! Whatever beauty and excitement it can represent exists in your mid and spirit to begin with. Ansel Adams THE CAMERA 1980

[@mikafoxx2717]

Definitely agree. I bought a sigma art 35mm f1.4, and I found that I could care less about it and the 40mm f2.8 is plenty good enough, and much lighter. Even in lower light I prefer the minimum DOF.

[@danc2014]

I wanted to see an iphone added to the comparison. How did they put 48 mpix in there camera

[@dogblessamerica]

I like shooting full frame Nikon and Panasonic M4/3. If I want shallow dof and the best dynamic range, I'll go for the Nikon. But if I don't want to be weighed down with kit, and need a bit more flexibility than just using my phone, it's the Panasonic.

[@TheBigNegative-PhotoChannel]

Its not about the size, its abou how you use it. 😅

[@JP514-]

this is totally true 🤫😇

[@wtfiswiththosehandles]

That's what she said.