We want full frame versions of these Micro Four Thirds lenses!

[@twoeggcups]

Never understood the hate for MFT. It’s been one of the best things to come out of the digital switch.

[@DustinBKerensky97]

@Paul Jones It's been around since 2008, it's the de facto go to for video camera bodies now, and this guys is saying "It never sold!" 😂

[@elendilnix]

@@VictorVonVulfgang they are insecure for other sizes...

[@omnymisa]

I never understood that neither, if someone wan full frame just go out and buy what you want stop complaining there are different options for people with different needs. An let me tell you that need for less bulk and weigh gear is a real thing and mFT is the best in that.

[@artistjoh]

It was MFT that introduced mirrorless as a market segment. But even back in 2008 when I bought a GH-1 the mob was claiming that MFT was going to die. They are the same sort of people who mock anyone who buys Leica. Some people are so insecure they need to feel superior to other people and they need scapegoats. MFT is the current scapegoat.

[@yftan2873]

i never own a digital full frame. my first digitial interchangeable lens was the olympus e300. actually i did buy apsc but i still uses my mft more, so i reckon i might not be ready for a full frame yet.

[@EliteKnowledgeClan]

Compact, great weather sealing and brilliant stabilization are the 3 most important traits I want. Nothing else comes close to M43 for my needs no matter how much money I spend If full frame systems started making compact pro grade lenses I might have somewhere to go assuming M43 is actually dying. Til then I'm sticking with my current setup until I'm not able to take photos anymore

[@Durio_zibethinus]

Is that true m43 lenses are generally cheaper than apsc counterpart? Their size seems similar & because I'm not professional, I think it's not very wise to investing in the latest & greatest gear..

[@mfreider]

Durio sp Olympus PRO lenses ain’t cheap. Neither I would call super lightweight. At the same time we have too look in prospective, for example one of best portrait lens in m43 is Olympus 45/1.2 which cost in B&H $1150 and weight 410g, in FF one of the best would be Sony 85/1.4 GM which cost $1800 and weight 820g. They both are top of the line lenses, best of the best, very robust and capable to produce incredible portraits. At the same time you can see difference in price and weight. If we take a small step down from pro lines, we will find Sony 85/1.8 $600 - 370g and Olympus 45/1.8 $300 - 120gramm. APS-C is kind of strange world, because most of manufacturers treating they line of APS-C as “a step” to they FF system, this is why it is hard to find top of the line APS-C lenses from camera manufacturers, as continuation of my example we can take Sony E 50/1.8 OSS, which is $350 and weight 200 grams. Still bigger (it is plain physics) and more expensive (again - physics, need bigger glass, cost more) compare to Olympus 45/1.8. M43 has no “upscaled” format (like FF for APS-C) , so instead Panasonic and Olympus can simply differentiate line of they optics , like Olympus has 3 lines - Zuiko, Zuiko Premium and Zuiko PRO, giving exceptional choice to clients, depending on needs and budget. PS Fuji is exception, they APS-C cameras doesn’t have FF upscale, this is why they also produce one line of optics without “pushing” (motivating) clients to higher price point. Kudos to them.

[@youknowwho9247]

@@Durio_zibethinus MFT is the most overpriced system on the market in terms of value for money.

[@youknowwho9247]

@@mfreider You're comparing apples to oranges. That f/1.4 MFT prime is an f/2.8 full frame equivalent. It's nowhere near the optical performance of a Sony f/1.4 prime. A single 24-70mm f/2.8 in full frame replaces a whole bag of f/1.4 MFT primes. Once you do crop factor conversion correctly instead of the way Olympus's marketing wrongly tells you to it quickly becomes apparent that MFT is the most expensive system on the market in terms of value for money.

[@mfreider]

Landscope 360 Apple and oranges? Not really :) I am looking on both systems and in this particular example, just pick portrait lenses. Regardless of f-stop and other “equivalencies”. From prospective - if I need to take portrait, what is may choices. Personally, using both Sony 85/1.4 GM in past and 45/1.2 From Olympus, I can not say what 85 is far superior actually I prefer Olympus, much easier and nice to use. Same about pro grade zooms in FF like 24-70/2.8 , actually I would say most of what I used is not that great but it is my personal opinion. Because I am not a professional just a spoiled hobbist - value for money has a different meaning for me. I had few FF system in past and after switching to m43 found out a best balance of values (important for me, other person may have different set of values) vs prices.

[@ynkkruse]

M43 still is the perfect system for anyone who loves to travel and hike a lot. Weather sealing is sooo important when I'm on a 2/3 day hiking tour in the mountains. What use is a camera system that I'm too afraid to shoot on when it starts to rain? Currently no other system gives me the freedom and flexibility that M43 does in terms of size, weight and quality of the results. On my trips (pre Corona :D) I carry the PanaLeica 8-18mm f2.8-4, Olympus 25mm f1.2 and Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 (all weather sealed), and am still able to pack clothes for 2/3 day hikes into a single backpack. Name any other system that gives me the same range, the same weight and the same quality of results. I will continue to use my M43 gear for the next 5 to 6 years, at which point I might want to upgrade to a new system due to advancement in technology (assuming that M43 will eventually die). Who knows whats going to happen until then? More camera companies will go broke because of smartphones. Olympus was the first big name to fall, but it definately won't be the last.

[@gabithemagyar]

Exactly !!! Those reasons are exactly why I picked up the Olympus EM5 Mii for travel (weather sealing, weight, build quality, fantastic stabilization - plus ergonomics and style). My Sony APS-C cameras just didn't have those features and Sony seemed uninterested in developing those features. For travel. I haven't found any drawbacks to the M43 sensor apart from performance inside dimly lit areas where flash was not allowed/practical.

[@philippedugout2278]

Good points I owe ff and m4/3 and both are great and high quality, different uses as you mentionned.

[@youknowwho9247]

You can do the exact same thing with full frame gear and get significantly higher quality results - for less money.

[@funtomias]

@@youknowwho9247 Can you state the combo? for FF-equivalent of 18-36, 50mm, 80-300 mm weather-sealed?

[@ynkkruse]

Landscope 360 was macht der Blutdruck?

[@jlwilliams]

Back in the days before photography was taken over by IT twits, “The new 80mm Planar on the Rolleiflex 2.8F sounds great, but in terms of total light capture equivalency vs. the Linhof Super-Technika...” was said by nobody, ever. Likewise, back then we realized that less depth of field wasn't always better (in which case presumably the ideal would be a lens with no depth of field at all.) Now, people cherry-pick totally bogus “equivalency” theories to justify whichever camera brand they want to prefer. By this dubious standard, it's technically accurate to say that Micro Four Thirds quadruples the power of all your flash units compared to cameras using the Grandpa's-Exakta format, but you never hear people touting “flash energy equivalency” because that doesn't reinforce their preconceived preference. Photography, like everything else, is being ruined by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

[@paleosetimagazine7481]

This is - by far - the most intelligent comment about photography I read in a long, long time.

[@rolib6108]

Bruh, there is an insane difference between ff and micro43. Ff all the way, for professional nature and wildlife photography

[@tylou4479]

I love the advantages of MFT system over FF but I don't mind owning both MFT and FF system for different purposes. I will probably still pick my Gh5 kit over FF most of the time because it is so much lighter.

[@youknowwho9247]

There are no advantages of MFT over full frame...

[@jsleeve1]

Landscope 360 there are plenty. Even the guys that made this video, that literally test hundreds of cameras, still personally own and shoot MFT. That says a lot. Good cameras come in all shapes and sizes

[@youknowwho9247]

@@jsleeve1 Right. Name one such advantage. Just one.

[@tylou4479]

​@@youknowwho9247 smaller and lighter lens and takes less space in your bag. I carry x3 primes , 12-35mm and top handle all the small Peak Design sling. I pretty much carry this everyday... I can't see myself doing that with FF.

[@JusticeFreedomDestin]

In the mean time of wishing these lenses were full frame, I’ll be trying to grab as many Olympus lenses as I can. And cameras for that matter.

[@Rasmus98]

Me too

[@onthemove301]

And me. BTW I'm also invested in Sony FF, recognise it can produce better quality images when really necessary, but most of the time my Olympus EM1MK2 does an excellent job.

[@Durio_zibethinus]

Bargaaaain time lol

[@koolkutz7]

Interesting that Robin Wong has posted an announcement from Olympus that states some new lenses are coming such as a 100mm F2.8 pro macro!

[@paulthomas8986]

I do not see why anyone would want one of these small aperture full frame lenses where you would have to crank up the iso to get a decent shutter speed and have slow focus especially in less than ideal light. I think photographers that wanted to carry smaller size and weight would be better served by improved sensor tech for micro 4/3rds. If it was not for the relentless propaganda against micro 4/3rds by the KZbin photography channels perhaps we would not have Olympus selling out and may already have had improved sensor tech in micro 4/3rds.

[@thedavidbrother2]

yeah, I'd say buy a Olympus or Panasonic (which is still in the system), and get all the benefits. On top off reduced price, beacause of Oly situation. Some day, some monopoly-seeking company called Sony might even release a new sensor in 43.... :/

[@TheMagdiragdag]

@@thedavidbrother2 They already did in September 2019. It's an 8K30fps capable mft sensor and will give you about 42MP stills resolution.

[@marcus3d]

If it's acceptable on MFT why wouldn't it be acceptable on FF? I don't know what you consider high ISO, but let's say your limit on MFT is ISO 1600. The equivalent (i.e., with the same amount of image noise) on FF is ISO 6400. Your MFT F4 at ISO 1600 will produce similar result as a FF F8 at ISO 6400. If they can make the size equivalent too then sign me up!!

[@professionalpotato4764]

@@thedavidbrother2 It's not necessarily cheaper though. M43 lenses are generally more cost ineffective and more expensive compared to full frame versions if you account for equivalency of DoF. Throwing bokeh out of the equation, yeah M43 will be way cheaper.

[@borderlands6606]

Finally someone gets it - from your mouths to Japan's ear. I shoot a 2.8 40mm pancake on a 5D, and a 12-32 zoom a few millimetres long on a GX80 among other lenses, and never feel inadequately equipped. In fact I spent years shooting 35mm lenses at f5.6 and f8, with rare excursions below 2.8. Even on full frame portraits I've never felt the need to go below f2, because some part of the face will be out of focus.

[@youknowwho9247]

Throwing parts of a face out of focus is not a problem but the goal of long portrait primes with fast apertures. Sounds to me like you have no idea how to utilise fast glass properly.

[@borderlands6606]

@@youknowwho9247 I was shooting fast lenses professionally in the 1970s - why wouldn't I understand their advantages? Portrait lenses were generally shot stopped down because the optics of the period didn't lend themselves to wide open use. Typically an f1.4 lens was shot at f2, which was sharper than an f2 lens at the same aperture, though there were exceptions. It also allowed all the features of the face to be rendered sharply, no one was going to pay for a photograph with an out of focus nose. The longer a focal length, the shallower the depth of field, all other things being equal. Modern lenses are sold exclusively on sharpness and maximum aperture, qualities which require compromises elsewhere.

[@youknowwho9247]

@@borderlands6606 That's utter rubbish. Clearly you've not kept up with the time. People want ultra shallow portraits. If you're getting the ears in focus you're doing it wrong.

[@borderlands6606]

@@youknowwho9247 (face plant) Stick to dew on spider's webs my friend.

[@youknowwho9247]

@@borderlands6606 It's called "face palm". Everything about you screams "I failed to keep up with the times".

[@CharlesBorowicz1]

Saving size in lenses is where it's at. Camera bodies can really only be so small. I'm all for this concept

[@andrear9500]

Canon seems to move that way with f7.1 zooms and f11 supertele primes. I am sure they will perform great, not too sure about size and price. We'll have to wait for that. Interesting topic. Thanks

[@ryankwan1934]

Precisely. People don't realize Canon is making a big play with the RF mount. They are going to make all things to everyone. The real issue is they don't have a prosumer travel body to go with those lenses.

[@preiaen]

@Luke Caldwell this video cover exactly that question in a very convincing way: kzbin.info/www/bejne/o5C8p5xohcp5hdU

[@Xiaotian_Guan]

@@preiaen Are there any leaked photos of that f11 lens? I'm pretty interested in that in telescope world, f11 is very common for Schmidt-Cassegrain design. I wonder if that lens is actually catadioptric?

[@vaibhavpisal]

@Luke Caldwell and that too a wildlife telephoto which will a lot of times be used in darker situations. Why not get nikon 200-500? Lower iso would mean better iq most likely than a prime.

[@youknowwho9247]

@@ryankwan1934 The EOS R squarely falls into the prosumer market. What they don't have yet is a professional body.

[@D.Eldon_]

Based on some of the comments below, there appears to be a basic misunderstanding regarding "equivalent f-stop". Why the misunderstanding? Answer: Because light-gathering and depth of field (DOF) are being conflated. Here is the truth: (1) - In terms of light-gathering, an f4.0 aperture is identical on micro four thirds (m4/3) and full-frame (FF) systems. In fact, it is true for all camera systems (large-format, medium format, etc). As far as their lenses are concerned, all conventional cameras have the same light-gathering ability at the same f-stop. (For confirmation, learn how f-stop values are calculated.) Therefore, a FF f8.0 lens will gather less light per area than an m4/3 f4.0 lens. This will force the FF camera to make much longer exposures with an f8.0 lens unless you push the ISO of the FF camera way up. But the higher ISO does not help autofocus (AF), which still needs actual photons of light and, as explained in the above video, some (perhaps most) FF systems today will have serious AF problems at such small apertures. In this respect, there is no equivalence between FF f8.0 and m4/3 f4.0. If you truly want the same light-gathering ability in FF, you'll need an f4.0 lens also and that will mean a way bigger lens and a way bigger cost because of the 2x larger image size (for equivalent quality). (2) - When the image size of the camera changes, the DOF changes for a given f-stop. The larger the image size in the camera, the shallower the DOF. This is true for both film and digital sensors. It's why a large-format camera has shallower DOF than a full-frame at the same f-stop. And a full-frame camera has shallower DOF than m4/3 at the same f-stop. Because of the 2:1 ratio between FF and m4/3 image sizes, an m4/3 f4.0 lens will have twice the DOF as a FF f4.0 lens. So you can say that an m4/3 f4.0 lens has the equivalent DOF as an FF f8.0 lens. But we're ONLY talking about DOF and that's where the equivalence begins and ends. As explained in (1) above, there is a big difference between light-gathering of an f4.0 and an f8.0 lens and this does not change with camera image size. (3) - There is one more difference that is sometimes overlooked: optical resolution. The resolving power of the lens must match the pixel size of the image sensor (actually, photo receptors). Since we are talking about area, the difference between FF and m4/3 is squared. This means a 20 mp m4/3 image sensor will require the lens to have 4x the resolving power of an equivalent lens with a 20 mp FF image sensor. Here's another way to think about it: If the physical size of an M.Zuiko m4/3 lens were scaled up to fit the 2x larger size of the image sensor in a FF camera, and the same super-high resolution M.Zuiko glass were used, the 2x larger lens would resolve an image with 4x the resolution and handle an 80 mp FF image sensor!!! This means: Any FF image sensor with less than 80 mp will need less optical resolution from its lenses than the m4/3 system does. This works against the cost savings of a m4/3 lens. In terms of cost, the following summary should help: For a given f-stop m4/3 cameras require lenses with half the size and weight of an FF system to produce their smaller m4/3 image size. This is a big plus for m4/3. However, those smaller m4/3 lenses must use glass elements with a higher resolving power to match their image sensor's smaller pixel size. That's a negative for m4/3. And this is why price comparisons are not as easy as you might think since the smaller physical size of the m4/3 lenses is offset somewhat by the need for lenses with higher optical resolution. Note: The high-resolution mode of some m4/3 cameras is achieved by stacking multiple 20 mp images. Each image is a separate exposure with the image sensor offset by half the size of a photo receptor group (basically, half a pixel). Because each of the individual images is only at 20 mp, the final 40, 50 or 80 mp composite high-rez image is legitimate and does not require a higher optical resolution from the lens. Sadly, the major drawback of this technique is that it only works for stationary subjects.

[@smartmagis]

Well written. I had a firm understanding of your points 1 & 2 about F-stop and DOF. But I hadn't heard about the optical resolution, mostly because all this modern glass seems to be so sharp anyway, even at the cheap end (for my non-pro purposes, at least). Still, incredibly interesting to consider.

[@chcomes]

Toneh N. and FroknowsAperture disapprove of this video :-P

[@youknowwho9247]

They really wouldn't. They've been the ones spearheading correct crop factor conversion and debunking MFT marketing. That's all.

[@chcomes]

@@youknowwho9247 If you say so... what I meant is that for instance Fro does not want to qualify a lens as pro if it is not 2.8, regardless of build quality or other image quality aspects. Tony would rather use a lens with lower F number even if it has terrible focus breathing, for video, giving us headaches, or a camera that makes line skipping so badly that has lower video DR than a M43, just for the bokeh. I think we all understand equivalency, it is just not very important for many of us since IQ has become so good regardless.

[@renanmlopes]

@@chcomes I totally agree with you. Tony thinks and says that a super shallow depth of field always produces cinematic images which is nonsense. He always uses the fastest lenses possible regardless the environment he is and sometimes the image is so bright that you can see just his face. Composition is a key element in photography and filmmaking and it's important to see some of the background to properly understand the scene. To have a super thin depth of field is important in portrait photography but he uses this technique every time. I realy don't understand why people think that one aspect of photography is the only one that matters.

[@TheSpaceBrosShow]

@@renanmlopes and even in portraiture, too much broken is a thing. At least to me, contextualizing the subject is also important in portraiture and as such 2.8 is often more than enough.

[@youknowwho9247]

@@chcomes "Pro" means "for professional use". A zoom slower than f/2.8 isn't worth it for a working pro who shoots people, which is the vast majority of pros. The build quality of fast aperture glass is also generally much higher than that of slower options. As a rule of thumb, distinguishing lenses as pro by their fast aperture makes perfect sense. As far as video goes, everything you said is a matter of taste. I don't care about focus breathing or like skipping, but I hate distracting backgrounds and noise. Let's also not forget that the single best pro video body in this market right now is indeed a full frame: The S1H. The problem with the "pro" tag on MFT glass is that the only thing "pro" about them is the price tag. Their low effective apertures make them useless for most professional work, not to mention the fact that outdated 20 mpix sensors don't cut it in today's environment.

[@ACEkroth]

"Gigantic, glass, light-gathering phallus"

[@musicdefinesgravity]

6:58 LOOL someone's been drinking before filming.. love it

[@PhuongTran-ze8bz]

Sharpness is more important than narrow deep of field. We can blur sharp images but not the other ways. The 12-100 is so sharp. With some compression you can narrow depth of field too. Combined with the old em5 ii, it has 6.5 stops IS for low light landscape. I bought a bigger flash for low light portrait cause the lens is long so It partially blocks the small flash come with the body.

[@jeffslade1892]

The point of MFT, like the 12-100 f/4 you started off with, is it is *not* a 24-200 f/8 and it *is* a genuine f/4. The f-number is the light gathering capability of any lens. It is defined as focal length divided by iris diameter. I.E. 100mm / 25mm = f/4 If you made that lens fit full frame it would still be a 12-100 f/4 The whole equivalence thing is basically nonsense and the DoF is a FoV thing due to image size. If you adapt say a 50mm FF lens onto MFT it is still a 50mm lens, it does not mysteriously change into a 100mm lens.

[@GordLamb]

Panasonic has exactly one opportunity to save m43: bring out a zero-concession powerhouse of a GH6. With some form of PDAF. And soon.

[@tylou4479]

Manual focus is fun. Not fussed with AF but I can see why people like vloggers need AF for what they do.

[@peace4myheart]

Not if the price is greater than $2000. I still like m43 but lately, the cameras are out of my reach due to their high prices.

[@GordLamb]

@@tylou4479 Manual focus is fun ... when you're in a studio or on a specific shoot. It's not fun when you're on a gimbal, runnin' and gunnin', or shooting sports/wildlife where you only get one shot to get it right.

[@GordLamb]

@@peace4myheart G9 is the bargain of the century right now..

[@youknowwho9247]

@@GordLamb The G9 is still overpriced for a 20 mpix camera without PDAF and a tiny MFT sensor that limits shooting to below ISO 1600.

[@ReclusiveEagle]

"I have a surprise for you.... Its big but its not too big.." 😂😂

[@macht4turbo]

Sigma should make their 1.8 zooms available for mirrorless, that would be nice. Regarding slow lenses with good quality: Fuji has the 18-55 f2.8-4 and 55-200 f3.5-4.8 and their f2 prime lineup. There is also and equiv to the 16-80 f4 in most camera systems. I think a big problem for the manufacturers is, that people believe they need fast glass. Nikon was criticized heavely for their initial z-lens lineup, where as canon was praised for their pro glass for the rf-mount. I believe it is way harder to sell a good quality slow lens, than a medium quality fast lens, because in the end, they will be priced almost the same, but one is sexy, the other is not.

[@kagetsukensuke]

Feels like a pre-plug for some lenses you (and most people) already know about but have probably already played with. Looking forward to the announcements. :)

[@adityasingh6478]

Canon is about to launch a whole bunch of f8 or f11 ish lenses ... probably on 9th jul

[@JokiW]

@@adityasingh6478 Somehow I got the feeling that @k Kensuke already knew about this...

[@ansaditya]

@@JokiW yeah most probably , but i still wanted to vent out ... specifically dont like the fact when Jordan stressed that even a couple of thousand price tag for such lenses would be reasonable ...

[@kagetsukensuke]

@@JokiW Certainly did. ^_^

[@kagetsukensuke]

@@adityasingh6478 Yes, that's true... Already knew as I imagined most people probably do. :)

[@intersonic]

I don’t know if you all are discussing small aperture. For the light exposure amount F4 is enough for MFT size as same as F4 in Full Frame. The difference is the depth of field only, it’s F8 DoF in Full Frame.

[@chryseass.5143]

Happy Canada Day! Thanks for the fun discussion!

[@torb-no]

One of the things I appreciate about Fuji is that they have fairly slow (and small) yet high quality primes like ”fujicrons“ (incl. the 16 f2.8). I wish more camera/lens brands did this: small, and ”slow”, yet high build quality and image quality (whether it’s crop og FF). The only one I know that really consistently does this is Leica with their M lenses but they don’t exactly get the potential affordability advantages of ”slower” lenses. Like they demonstrate in the video, as far as zooms go, m43 is even better in this regard, and I’d love to have something like the current XF16-80mm f4, but like f6 or something and have it be smaller than the current XF16-80.

[@Kai-P]

I'd love if the 16-80 would be close to the 12-100 in quality, sadly it is far from it.

[@martinkocent801]

A f4.0 Lens is a f4.0 Lens, no matter what format you use, when it comes to GATHER LIGHT. You get the same shutter speed in Aperture Prio when aperture + ISO + light conditions are the same on FF or MFT. However, where FF and MFT differs the depth of field. A f4.0 MFT lens has a DOF of 8.0 in FF. The advantage of MFT is, that you can shoot at f1.2, where you can get a lot of light and keep the ISO low, while still have a DOF of f2.4 eq to FF. The advantage of FF is, that you can raise you ISO, to compensate the f2.8 vs f1.2. MFT 300mm f4.0 = FF 600mm f4.0 in shutter speed MFT 300mm f4.0 = FF 600mm f8.0 in DOF. Raise your ISO by 2 stops and you get the same SS like a 600m f4.0 FF or 300mm f4.0 MFT. At the end, its all the same s**t :D. The question ist, do you wanna carry 1Kilo of s**t or 2 Kilo of s**t :D

[@Elgsdyr]

Well, you're right and wrong. The light intensity from e.g. F4 on any is the same on any system, that's why you use same settings otherwise. But the light intensity is measured by area and a FF sensor has four times the area of an MFT sensor, so the whole FF sensor actually gathers four times the light of the whole MFT sensor at the same aperture. Or put in another way: One pixel in e.g. a 24MP FF sensor receives four times as many photons in the same time frame as one pixel on a 24MP MFT sensor at the same aperture. That's why FF has a typical 2-stop noise advantage over MFT. And that's why it all theoretically cancels itself out with exactly the same image properties.

[@photosbymichelperez8297]

In reference to the Olympus 12-100mm F4 Im amused at how miss-information keeps being said. The lens is F4 not F8, the light capability of the lens is F4, now the equivalent depth of field compared to FF is F8. But in the video Chris mentions that is F8, but fails to clarify whether is light gathering capability or depth of field. And F4 lens will gather the same light regardless of camera format.

[@soundknight]

Your missing a few variables. F stop is not an accurate measurement anyway... The F value in MFT does capture roughly the light that is stated (MFT F1.8 [often actually T2] is the same as FF F1.8 in light transmission). The issue arises in the sensor where the grid of the MFT has smaller pixels than FF and as a ratio of the area (squared) the frame around each pixel takes a higher value % of the image which then decreases light gathering and electronic transition to the CPU. This is also why moiree is more of an issue in MFT than in FF - hence all of the low pass filter MFT cameras since the Lumix GX8. The largest difference between MFT & FF Fstop # is actually the depth of field (focus field). Portraits are better in FF but noses can easily get out of focus :), Kids running at twilight is also better due to compensation of the manual controls to freeze a tiny little bit more of the movement. MFT is the perfect travel / wildlife / vlog / family video camera. I'm thinking of keeping my MFT system for these very reasons, with primes 15 f1.7, 42.5 f1.7 8-18 and 100-400 zooms and getting a FF Astro setup with Pentax K1 mkii (in body star tracking), a bright wide prime around 14-20mm and either a 24-70ish zoom or a tilt shift portrait lens around 90-100 in perspective. BTW, we should be changing the language of lens length to the word perspective or degree 'P' or '°' . This way we are all talking about the same thing.

[@ToxicGopher]

Interesting concept but there are a few problems. MFT lenses project a smaller image circle and require smaller optics. The crop factor means an MFT lens can be 100 mm when a FF must be 200 mm to achieve the same field of view. Aperture in terms of light density means an F4 MFT captures as much light by area as a Full Frame F4 lens. An FF F8 lens would capture about 8 times less light by area and would be hugely difficult to auto focus regardless of tech since the same tech will always work better with more light

[@domtomazo]

I think of this quite often. I have an old manual S-M-C Takumar 35mm F3.5 that is compact and a nice general lens. For Micro 4/3 I have the Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm F1.8 that is very similar in size, weight, eq. aperture. Very happy with both!

[@tierradentro2]

I'm confused, I thought the only difference between an f4.0 micro 4/3 lens and a f4.0 FF lens was the depth field. I thought the amount of light entering the lens was equivalent on both lenses. So a f4.0 micro 4/3 lens give you less separation but it used the same speed that the FF equivalent.

[@philippedugout2278]

They made a clear mistake many times, a micro 4/3 lens let's say f2:8 will gather sale amount of light as a ff 2:8. Same for an aps c 2:8 etc etc. They mixed crop factor VS f. So disappointing fron well known youtubbers.

[@SurfinScientist]

Yes, you are correct, in that an f4.0 MFT lens gathers the same amount of light as an f4.0 FF lens per unit area of sensor. So, shutter speeds will be similar at the same ISO number. The equivalence only applies to depth of field. Unwittingly, these reviewers mentioned another advantage of MFT: a FF lens with the same depth of field equivalence (i.e., twice the f number) will have worse autofocus performance.

[@atanuhalder7750]

No , light gathering depends on physical aperture (= focal length/f-stop). I have a PhD and understanding in optics to confirm that . 300mm f4 mft is 600mm f8 on ff for all optical purposes. The video is exactly correct.

[@MotoRich900]

Any of the Pentax Limited lenses like the FA 77mm f/1.8 are amazing!

[@thebitterfig9903]

Or the 15mm f/4. APS-C, but still. There’s no shallow depth of field on a lens that wide anyhow, so just make it light and tiny and beautiful.

[@StrikeFromTheSkies]

@@thebitterfig9903 Exactly. I never understood this pursuit of wide apertures over their size in wide lenses.

[@maartentakens8721]

the thought is not bad, and yes a 12- 100 f/4 lens is the equivalent of 24 -200 with a depth of field of f8, in daily use however you can use those 2 extra stops of light when hiking in the forests and similar situations , a full frame f8 lens will then have the exact depth of field but is slower which will result in you having to bring along a tripod and that will add a lot of weight ..

[@UnboxDemand]

Seems like canon are bringing 600F11 & 800F11 soon. It will be interesting to see how they perform.

[@pmc7105]

I'm glad that someone is finally talking about this. I rarely do video, shoot mostly at f11, travel a lot, and want the highest image quality I can get but in a light weight package (and APS-C isn't doing it for me compared to my A7R2). For some reason, when companies make a lightweight lens they assume that those are for beginners and don't make them as good optically as they could be. And they also assume that if you want a high quality lens you must also want a giant aperture and don't mind carrying around a beast of a lens. IRIX was on the right path with releasing a light version of a lens along with the regular version. More manufacturers should do the same, but also shrink the aperture along with using the lighter materials.

[@AnandaSim]

That's the most hilarious video I've watched for a long, long time! More laughs than a Kaiman Wong or a Conspiracies episode. I gotta hand it to you two, you're veterans in the KZbin business and you've got a knack of getting to the point. Started talking with the idea of an f/8 type lens, hopefully sharp as MFT, cheaper than the current f/4 or f/2.8 and then....... you remind us that this f/8 is not an equivalent aperture (as in depth of field) but is really dark (as in not much light hitting the autofocus elements). Hahahahaha....

[@jonerikrolf2029]

Hey, guys. I really enjoy your videos, but in this one you needs more precision or qualification about the m43 lens performance. You correctly praise the Olympus 12-100 f/4 lens, give the equivalence for full frame lenses (24-200mm) but then call it an f/8 lens. Please qualify this f-stop muddle. The DOF equivalent to FF may be close to f/8, the the lens’ constant aperture (light transmission) is f/4 not f/8. Some FF fan boys incorrectly think my 300mm f/4 (600mm equivalent) is a slow f/8 lens.

[@Leptospirosi]

2:23 it s NOT "f/8"! it is "f/4! (because of physics) and gathers light EXACTLY as any f/4 FF lens (meaning light gathered per squared cm on the sensor), being it for 1"sensors or medium format ones! It is just that it is "f/8 equivalent" when, and just "WHEN", you consider depth of field, which, BTW, when you are looking for a 24/200 equivalent lenses in FF, it is not exactly a "priority"... 6:44 Thats simply not true! An f/8 lens in FF would be practically useless except in bright sun because you'd get 2 stop less of light compared to m43 f/4 There is enough confusion in costumers without the need for adding more (and killing m43 further)

[@1fareast14]

No, it's accurate. Higher light intensity, but over a smaller sensor, same total amount of light.

[@Kai-P]

I never get why this always gets missed. If you want depth of field in your images, FF can actually be worse than MFT. Even more so when you can make use of their better IBIS.

[@quangpham4372]

FF has about 2 stops less noise than M43 anyway so that cancels out. Also, the equivalent conversion would also give you the lenses with the same size. A M43 25mm F/1.7 and a full frame 50mm F/3.4 will have the exact same physical size in your hand and take pictures with the exact same field of view and amount of bokeh.

[@jlwilliams]

1fareast14 Interesting for physicists, but as a photographer I don't care about the abstract number of total photons. What I care about is being able to achieve the exposure settings that allow me to make the photo I want to make. F/numbers are called RELATIVE apertures precisely because they're relative to focal length, and that's what matters for photography.

[@onegrapefruitlover]

Exactly. You can thank Toneh Northrup for making this equivalency crap mainstream. DoF is different but the rest is the same in practical terms.

[@charlesnorwich5932]

BTW, why can't we have sharp photos from Full frame system as we have from Micro four thirds system?

[@TheSpaceBrosShow]

Equivalency is indeed a thing but its importance to photography is often obnoxiously overstated

[@timtradingcomments2410]

It's important if you're comparing two systems with different size sensors. Otherwise, it's irrelevant.

[@onegrapefruitlover]

Yep, pretty much irrelevant except for DoF, and honestly that's not very important either

[@GinoFoto]

As long, as price tag stay on the reasonable level, nothing wrong with Canon RF 800/11 really.

[@JM-vw1dk]

Agreed! But what is the max magnification? I hope it's high for close up work (yes, close up!) The Oly 300mm f4 has 0.48X FF EQ max magnification and 600mm EQ compression of background - WOW!

[@youknowwho9247]

@@JM-vw1dk it's also an effective f/8 and goes on a 20 mpix body. A high res full frame cropped to 20 mpix will magnify larger and compress better with nearly any telephoto lens.

[@mortenthorpe]

F11 as the largest (Iris size) Aperture is a sick joke. Especially from canon, who in the first place have awful dynamic range coverage, now it’ll be even worse with high iso... canon, canon, canon... what have you been smoking?

[@jangarcia1338]

@@mortenthorpe exactly, most Canon FF cameras have the dynamic range of a m43 camera already. Some even a little worse.

[@mortenthorpe]

Jan Garcia yes... and most people apparently think that high iso is only about introducing noise - it’s not really... the major side effects of higher iso, are that the dynamic range goes down, as the iso goes up... its easy to prove - take the same image at two different iso’s, necessarily adjusting shutter speed - and see how you can post process both to same exposure end results - notice the noise and lacking colors in the high iso shot... ahhh :)

[@allicks9220]

The art of looking into the wrong camera is here perfected.

[@VariTimo]

Anyone remember the Canon FD 35-105mm f3.5 macro? And it was full frame.

[@erikfarkas7868]

It also didnt have IS and AF, both of which takes space...

[@johnherzel718]

I own that very lens. Very nice (for film era extremely nice lens) 3.5 is easier to work with now with my EOS M /FD mount converter on my M50 and it's auto ISO it is almost practical to use. But don't get too far ahead with this. It still has to get past the crop factor. In the 90's I still used the 35-105 for everything that my 24mm prime or 75-200 f4.5 didn't get used for. It was my favorite

[@VariTimo]

We’re acting like sharp glass was just invented but that’s not true. There’re lenses that are almost a hundred years old and still take amazing looking pictures. We’ve just gotten better at getting rid of the kinks. But modern lenses still exhibit these aberrations and often lack character and intent in their visual look. I’m not talking about soft vintage lenses but compare a Zeiss Distagon from the 80s with a Sigma Art lens.

[@MarchalisVan]

Ehm... an F2 lens in M43 will have the same/similar amount of light as a full frame lens that's F2 for a given ISO... It's just the depth of field that would be like a full frame F4. Seperate to lenses, The M43 sensor doesn't handle low light as well as full frame as it's cramming pixels into a smaller space, buuuuut that is all situational and dependent on tech of each sensor, and in general shooting environments will make the difference between full and M43 negligible, if you have an ok lens, and moderate light, with modern sensor tech. Also, there are some cheaper M43 F0.95 - F1.4 lenses for lowlight which are great, if low light is a concern for noise... I don't know really why full frame is so popular, M43/APS-C is enough for mooost things, and one would think medium format would be for the "no grain at all" wimps :P

[@QuicksilverSG]

Still find it cringe to watch them slander the Olympus 12-100mm f4 zoom as an "f8" lens, which as everyone should know by now, is TOTAL BS. What's ironic is how heavy and expensive a beast you'd bear with a FULL-FRAME 12-100mm f4 lens.

[@momchilyordanov8190]

Look at the latest Samyang primes. The 18,24, 45, 75. These are the size of crop sensor lenses. And not bad at all as optical quality. So, you pretty much have the small lenses already. Add the new Tamron 2.8 zooms too. All of these are only for Sony cameras now, but still - they are available.

[@torb-no]

If the compact AF Samyang primes existed when I left Sony for Fujifilm I might have considered. They look excellent!

[@momchilyordanov8190]

I sold my previous system recently and technically I'm on the market for a camera and lenses. Before I was not even looking at Sony, but these small primes are really tempting.

[@Gobekadam]

This is exactly why I am super interested in Nikon Z-mount compact primes that appear on their lens roadmap! If they come up with a small 28mm f2.8, it is an immediate purchase for me

[@CS90]

I'm looking forward to their video-centric lenses.

[@LE672AJ]

I’m somehow not surprised that at 3:50 Chris has random telephoto lenses just hidden in his seat cushions haha

[@kameronstrickland]

The Canon 400mm 5.6 is my favorite lens for how small it is. I would love to see f8 primes in the wildlife range

[@alexdi1367]

Would be thrilled by this. I like the resolution and quality of FF, but light FF lenses tend to be prosumer with bad glass. I'd pay more for light, slow zooms with very good image quality.

[@chrismaxny4066]

I think you should make it clear when speaking of aperture f1.4 is f1.4 only in terms of 'depth of field' does an M4/3 1.4 equal a FF 2.8.

[@tobiasdavid3096]

I just recently picked up a Nikon Z6 with the 24-70 f2.8 from a friend and tried it out a bit. I‘ve looked at it before when it came out. But... no. Too big, too clumsy, too heavy (not to mention price) I‘ll keep my Olympus and Panasonic MFT. Small, light and always with me.

[@RobShootPhotos]

You hit something right on is the lens quality. I looked at Sony. For example, the F/4 24-70 was realistically a good price and the same price as the FujiFilm 16-55mm f/2.8 and Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 but there was certainly compromises with the Sony of overall sharpness, corner sharpness, weather sealing, chromatic aberration, distortion, vignette and color contrast. I was one willing to loose the full frame advantage to get higher quality optics. While there are f/2.8 prime lenses and sometimes 1/2 the price, most of them are not as optically good and built like the f/1.4 crop sensor lenses. Maybe the f/2.8 FF primes are closer to the f/1.8 & 2 crop sensor but they end up to the same price point and/or still not as good.

[@KelvinKamsg]

I hear you, I've got both olympus m43 cameras and lenses as well as Sony FF gear. That olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 is still my favourite zoom lens for all the features you mention as well as it's wonderful construction, manual focus clutch and weather sealing and it's often overlooked exemplary close focusing ability. Samyang and Tamron seems to be willing to head in that direction with primes. As a Sony FF user, I'd ideally like to see more 3rd party high quality, weather sealed and compact f/2.8 to 4 primes or constant f/4 or 5.6 zooms rather than increasingly compete for bigger aperture, price and bulk (like some kind of phallic contest), which serves the pros well enough but ignore the size and bulk benefits for mirrorless prosumer/hobbyist/travel/hiking/landscape/architecture purposes.

[@spiritualdeath]

Imagine what some KZbin Photogs would rant about slow aperture "PRO" lenses...

[@thb5505]

Thanks for this great video! Im a m4/3 user, worried about the future of the system. Would love to hear your thoughts about that....Also what is the website you use to show / compare the lenses in this video? Thanks!

[@no-trick-pony]

This might be hard to understand but sometimes you don't care for a narrow depth of field. For example when you try to record closeup video on your table. If I want that, I slap my 100 bucks speedbooster to Canon EF on it (with AF support but bad tracking capabilities) and get more light in the camera and shallower DOF.

[@andrewgoodman3188]

I shoot both M43 and Nikon Z and am very fond of both systems. If I where to use an adapter to attach my Oly 75 1.8 or my Oly 12-100 F4, to my Z6, I know I would loose auto focus but what would the equivalent be in terms of focal length and aperture? Sorry if this has been asked and answered but there are a lot of comments below. Thanks DP Preview

[@bdfrankmeow]

I think you got a point as a single system . I mean by that by having a 600mm f8 on a FF that has better hi iso performance seems to catch up to M43 but why bother unless you team it with some F1.4 35mm to 85mm AF where M43 can't go . It would make full frame more adaptable . Right now , my main system is M43 (Lumix G85 and Gx9) for extended focals and portability but i have a FF Nikon D610 with some vintage af and manual focus, mostly for DR and rendition .

[@JoergenKHKnudsen]

This time I think you are totally wrong. It would be much better to improve the mft sensors to make them compete with FF sensors in pixel count and performance at ISO above 3200.

[@finnillson4808]

I think we will see this. The GH5S sensor competes with A7SII with lowlight ability (No one complained about its performance). I think we will see ~20MP MFT sensor with dual gain performance like GH5S has.

[@kennethbeatty]

I would love to see this happen. I upgraded and have been thinking of going back to mft. Shallow depth of field is very overrated. Small lens I carry with me aren’t.

[@youknowwho9247]

Fast apertures aren't just about shallow depth of field, they're also about shooting in low light. If you don't need either, just get a full frame kit zoom. It replaces a whole bag of MFT primes in terms of optical performance.

[@Simoneister]

FF kit zooms don't measure up in optical quality to M43 primes

[@youknowwho9247]

@@Simoneister A 45 mpix full frame camera with a kit zoom produces much better images than a 20 mix MFT camera with an expensive prime.

[@Simoneister]

@@youknowwho9247 Nah

[@onegrapefruitlover]

@@youknowwho9247 Aha, sure bro

[@tallicarule1991]

Cool ideas! How much smaller would the be when factoring in the larger image sensor? Would the the bigger diameter rear element still increase size? Would full frame likely be able to have stabilisation that keeps up with micro four thirds? Would the the only benefit be noise performance?

[@JM-vw1dk]

Thank you for this video. I have the 12-100 f4 pro which is spectacular for lightweight single-lens travel landscape use (large DOF is a good thing there!). The 300mm f4 pro is SPECTACULAR for handheld close-up flowers/insects since it has a 0.48x FF equivalent max magnification with 600mm FF EQ background compression! That's my MAIN use for it (much more than for far off birding, which it does well if they're not flying) and you guys didn't mention that at all! DOH!

[@PhotoTrekr]

I don't think I would want slower versions of the full frame or aps-c lenses I have now which are 2.8 or f4 except for the 100-400mm and 200-600mm. The only exception I can think of was the Canon 400mm f5.6 which was an excellent lens.

[@DannyB-cs9vx]

I don't really understand why the aperture of 4/3 lenses needs to be doubled to compare with Full Frame. The lens is smaller, so will let in less light, but it is focusing the light it does get on a sensor that has an area 1/4th the size of a full frame. My thinking is there should be 4 times the light per pixel on the 4/3, (both cameras having the same MP). Sensor area 225mm squared for MFT vs 864mm squared for full frame. As lens diameter goes up, area greatly increases, but the full frame lens isn't that much larger, and it has to distribute the light on an area 4 times larger. I would think it is at least a draw, so 1.8 FF is 1.8MFT. Take a 25mm picture with 4/3 and a 50mm pic with Full frame using the same F stop and speed. Is the full frame twice as bright?

[@perrins57]

You are confused about the effect of sensor size on lenses. A M4/3 300mm f4 lens is not equivalent to a full frame 600mm f8 - its only the field of view that is equivalent. The aperture, depth of field and compression effect of a m4/3 300mm f4 are the same as for a full frame 300mm f4, but only viewing the center crop which is equivalent to 600mm field of view.

[@perrins57]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/m3LPf6xjp56rmdU

[@TechnoBabble]

I really don't know what the point of this comment is. While yes, PHYSICALLY the lens is a 300mm f/4 with a smaller area being imaged compared to a FF camera, a 300mm f/4 on MFT and a 600mm f/8 on FF will produce nearly identical results, which is why they are "equivalent".

[@perrins57]

@@TechnoBabble No they wont produce nearly identical results. The field of view is the only thing the same. A full frame 600mm will have both more compression and shallower depth of field than a M4/3 300mm at similar apertures. Also a 600mm f8 full frame lens will still be heavier, larger and more expensive than the current Olympus 300mm. What i dont see the point of is the above video. Especially as they should know in what ways the formats are and are not equivalent.

[@deustechmachina6061]

It seems to me the entire argument presented in the video is, "FF manufacturers should make MFT-like lenses and in doing so kill off MFT". There is more than just the glass to consider. Sony, Canon, Nikon and even Panasonic if they wanted to cannibalize their own MFT business, would have to create FF bodies that offer up all the best features of MFT as well. The problem with the "slow aperture lenses" on full frame is equivalence. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Sure, the depth of field is the same on a full frame f/5.6 lens as it is on an MFT f/2.8 one. However, you've lost that 2 stops of light. To get true equivalence between MFT and FF, you need to convert focal length, aperture and ISO. 2x focal length, 2x aperture, 4x ISO. Let's look at an example, using the PL 200mm f/2.8. A FF equivalent lens would be 400mm, f/5.6. That covers 2 of the 3 factors: focal length and depth of field. However, if you take two identical photos with these two lenses, the FF will be underexposed by two stops. Either you need to slow your shutter down or turn up the ISO on that FF. Assuming you're at ISO 3200 on your MFT camera, you'd need to be at ISO 12800 on FF given the same shutter speed. If we want to keep that 2 stop advantage in the FF lens... well, you've got the Sony 400mm f/2.8. At a price of $12,000 compared to the $3000 price tag on the PL 200mm f/2.8. That's a whole lotta cash for two stops. There's also the physical differences between those two lenses to consider. The Sony is more than double the weight and twice the size of the PL. Seems a bit backwards to me. Let's build a FF lens that'll offer up the same depth of field as an MFT lens at the cost of two stops. Isn't the entire argument in favor of full frame over MFT the fact that the larger sensor offers up that 2 stop advantage? With these proposed lenses, you're throwing that advantage out the window.

[@overnightdelivery]

Totally Correct. On top of that fast Pro M43rds lenses spank slow small aperture lenses from Full Frame in Sharpness. Even having more Megapixels can't make up for that.

[@baxtermarrison5361]

Surely as the image circle gets larger the more you have to correct for CA, distortion, vignetting etc., thus making FF equivalents of MFT is not as easy as it looks on paper.

[@balboa0621]

This. I was just thinking the same thing about the imaging circle.

[@youknowwho9247]

That's a non issue at small apertures.

[@baxtermarrison5361]

@@youknowwho9247 Depending on how tight to the image sensor you make the image circle. But yes, the smaller the apature the less of an issue CA etc. becomes. Transmission becomes a bigger issue for a FF equivalent, if you are looking at f11 etc.

[@lookylookie]

F4 on micro43 is still F4 . If you are comparing it to FF it’s the bokeh that is similar to F8 . F4 set on m43 and Ff, will still have similar shutter and iso settings

[@stewartlogie]

It’s about time some KZbinr said this. Many popular channels have slagged micro fourthirds in favor of full frame for a long time. Occasionally I have commented in such videos that i don’t need the aperture and don’t want to carry it. Never got a reply to such comments. As you note is common, I have a m43 system for wildlife and backpacking and a full frame system for sports and events where more light is needed. Looks like Canon may have some good slow lenses for the RF mount in mind, so let’s hope they do. My Olympus bodies aren’t going to last for ever.

[@komandagleby_GB]

First DPReview pushed FF and inferiority of MFT, now - when Olympus is to quit the business - they talk about MFT-like glass in FF world.

[@Stephen.Bingham]

I don’t think it will ever be technically possible to build a ff lens that is as compact as its m43 “equivalent”. Not only is the focal length twice as long, but building a compact lens that controls aberrations over the larger area of ff sensor is very challenging technically. I suspect that one would usually obtain better image quality with a m43 system if camera size is a design constraint.

[@dannyv5460]

Hi Chris, i might be asking you to suggest a dream camera but would like to know your perspective on this, I'm looking for a pocketable, stealthy camera having an all purpose lens on it, i find G5X mark 2 to tick all the boxes but I'd like more depth separation like an APS-C, if you could elaborate in a video about all the best options for a whole package in compact size, I'm sure it'll be helpful to many people, big fan of your sense of humor :)

[@TimofejNenarokov]

Is Jordan wearing Criterion shirt?

[@thatjordandrake]

Indeed!

[@TimofejNenarokov]

Jordan Drake cool!

[@jf9979]

The flipside could be said for m43rds. They could make a creamy bokeh 12-35mm f1.4 constant aperture zoom lens but it would be the same size, weight and probably price as a FF 24-70mm 2.8 negating the reason you went m43rds to begin with. Nothing wrong with having the option though I suppose.

[@youknowwho9247]

It would be much more expensive than a 24-70mm f/2.8 - just look at Panasonic's f/1.7 zoom. MFT is a very overpriced system.

[@osirismarbles5177]

@@youknowwho9247 Overpriced initially. a couple of years in and those prices fall dramatically in my experience. additionally i did some price comparisons w/ close enough lenses on other formats to the 10-25 f/1.7 and found glass to be roughly the same for "similar" range and light gathering. it was just a skim from DP review's lens database, but i thought it provided perspective.

[@jf9979]

@@youknowwho9247 the 10-25mm is a lot of money because there is no competition. Its quite a unique lens and very niche. I hear its also an outstanding lens. But If you stick to more common lenses they are generally cheaper. Olympus 300mm f4 is about a 6th of the price of canons 600mm f4. The price difference isnt normally that extreme but it proves a point. If you go pro lens for pro lens, you pretty much always pay more for FF... So you should. Its more glass.

[@youknowwho9247]

@@osirismarbles5177 That lens is a 20-50mm f/3.5 full frame equivalent. It's got a few nice features, which are all video centric. For photography it's less useful than the average full frame kit zoom - but larger, heavier and several times the price.

[@youknowwho9247]

@@jf9979 The Olympus 300mm f/4 is cheaper than a full frame 600mm f/4 because the two aren't comparable pieces of glass, the full frame option is worlds more capable. The Olympus is a 600mm f/8 full frame equivalent. It's effectively slower than a 150-600mm super zoom and Nikon's 200-500mm, but much more expensive.

[@giac01]

What combination is better, high end M43 lenses on a high end M43 camera, or a good full frame body with a kit FF lens? As far as i can see on Dxomark, a kit lens on (for example) the a7rii still has pretty good sharpness (>20 perceptual megapixels), and is quite comparably light to M43 lenses.

[@Shrek1965]

348/5000 The video is as it is, but it contains several incorrect starting parameters. I can’t believe you’re unfamiliar with this! f4 is f4 in any system in terms of light transmission. f4 in m4/3 is f8 at full frame only in terms of depth of field. And one of the biggest haters of the MFT system, Toneh, (especially Olympus) explained it as a physical fact.

[@marcotschilar1531]

True waht you say, but still, what is on the market for full frame isnt so bad. Tamron 28 - 200mm 2.8 compact for E Mount. Tamron 17 - 28 mm . Sigma 100 - 400 mm mirorless Version. Sony 24 105 f4 . Its not what you said you wanted, but there are affortable not too heavy lenses for mirorless full frame ( affortable, i mean, still more expensive than mft) . All in all um happy with the options on sony FF EMount

[@charlesnorwich5932]

Micro four thirds system with lens is good but is cheap, so it is not so profitable as the Full frame system. That's why they need to send these guys to point out anything that is "less good"

[@ReginaldEsque]

The Tamron 35-150 2.8-4 for Canon fullframe is 🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@simonmaney3438]

As a landscape photographer, slow but high quality zoom lenses suit me fine, I just wonder whether the market(s) that might use them are large enough. I aren't overly enthused by Canons new RF 'kit' zooms - slow, sharp in the center, but a lot of distortion at the wide end that requires IQ destructive correction. Something like a 24-105 f5.6-6.3 that matches the RF 24-105/4 but comes in smaller, lighter and a bit cheaper would be ideal, but it ain't gonna happen.

[@casperghst42]

Gentlemen, an F/4 M3/4 is equivalent to a F/4 on FF. You getting it wrong, the only thing which changes when you go from FF to APC or M43 is the DOF. An F2.8 will still be an F2.8 and so on, when it comes to light, which is what most people are interested in when they talk about travel lenses. If you want swallow DOF then get an prime, or drag around an FF camera.

[@MrJed_s]

f/4 literally means "focal length divided by 4". If the focal length for m43 is 1/2 that of FF (to get the same FoV), the aperture diameter will be half. So how does a lens capture the same amount of light as one with an aperture with twice the diameter?

[@TechnoBabble]

Two things change which lead to the use of equivalency calculations. Your DoF and your noise performance. An MFT sensor will produce 4x the noise of a FF sensor with similar technology behind them. This means that an MFT camera shooting f/4 and 400ISO will produce a result nearly identical to a FF camera at f/4 and 1600ISO.

[@keithholland4322]

Let's also not forget that because of the crop factor, the 12-100mm f/4 IS Pro has excellent close up capabilities. I think on the wide end it's about .3x magnification, which is equivalent to .6x full frame, and on the telephoto end it's about .2x (.4x). That's so close on the wide end that you have to be very careful not to block your light source with your lens. In other words, it makes a macro lens almost unnecessary. And on the 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro, you have .84x full frame equivalent magnification with a 2x teleconverter, so with just some very slight cropping, you can get a 1:1 full frame equivalent magnification. I think macro is the one area where micro four thirds really excels compared to full frame, but Olympus and Panasonic have never really cashed in on that advantage with their lens lineup. I know Olympus patented a 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens for micro four thirds, but it's never even appeared in their lens road map. They were also expected to release one for the old four thirds mount in 2008, but then they decided to invest in mirrorless instead. I think they could have really carved out a niche as the best system for macro photography, but it seems that that was always an afterthought.

[@Benjamin_Jehne]

The most I have done with my mFTs, I do now with a 1" G5X II. Or have a look at the RX100 VI/VII it's 24-200 F2.8-4.5. It might sounds weird, but if you don't need that max DOF, 1" is the more attractive sensor size IMHO. If you want it small, you take it as a compakt or if you want that extra mm, you go with a bridge like the FZ2000 or a RX10IV. For me, mFT got a bit obsolete these days.

[@eundoparkmusic]

A few months later Canon actually did with their new 600mm and 800mm lenses.

[@Universeal13]

Everyone says that mirrorless can focus at -8ev i don't know what system did you try it on but a7r4 can barley focus at -3ev.

[@colingift8912]

A couple of days ago just before the Olympus news I received a check from mpb for all of my Olympus high-end gear... Pro lenses their best high-end bodies... two boxes full, gone to them. For several years I kept both my Nikon and my micro four-thirds system using each one professionally and for pleasure going back and forth depending on the situation. When the Nikon Z system was developed I bought into it and after using both the z7 and Z 50 for almost two years found myself hardly ever using the micro four-thirds. The only thing I miss now are the relatively small ultra telephotos, although with my Z50 and some of their more recent kit zooms I'm coming pretty close in reach with better image quality in a very portable kit. I would rave about the micro 4/3 system to clients and Friends, and anybody else who would listen, but that was then and now is now.

[@kian8382]

While on the downside, you guys have given them an excuse to charge 2-3k for an f8, that way we might as well resurrect m4/3.

[@jamesdarnell8568]

How much do you want to pay for a 600mm full-frame wildlife lens?

[@finnillson4808]

How much is that FF 600mm wildlife lens? Thought so....

[@jamesdarnell8568]

Jesse A used Canon EF 500mm f/4.5 L lens is $2,100. A new Canon EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS lens is $13,000. If I was a serious wildlife / bird photographer, I might be happy to pay $3,000 for a new sharp EF 600mm f/8 L lens. A lot of birders might.

[@nicolasleberre1756]

the nikon af-p 70-300mm for full frame (not the dx variant) might be what you are hinting at here! I was surprised to see very few review or discussion of it though. It is a 4.5 to 5.6f, might be why it was "snobbed" by most professional

[@Xiaotian_Guan]

Sounds like a good idea, however, I'm afraid physics does not allow some of those full frame equivalence. Take telephoto lenses as an example, unless we can revolutionize the way glass bents light, the length of the lens has to be about the same as it's focal length. (Cassegrain design can reduce the length by folding the light path, and is commonly used in telescopes. But its image circle is very limited, in fact, it cannot be bigger than the secondary mirror) And since full frame sensor is 4 times larger than mft, the glass elements at the back have to be 4 times larger as well. I highly doubt that even if you can design a slower full frame lens, its weight still cannot compete with mft lenses.

[@tonyzhu403]

The Benefit of Micro 4/3. More Light Gathering (Exposure) at Same Depth of Field Equivalence.

[@mertmehmed6696]

Worse high iso performance neutralizes that. It's usually exactly 2 stops of difference with full frame. Stopping down and cranking up the iso would give same ruslts on ff. However, after f11 most lenses get soft, while the equivalent on m43 would be 5.6 and that would be sharper depending on the lens with the same depth of field. However that sharpness wouldn't matter a lot since m43 sensors have a max resolution of 20mp for now, compared to around 60 ff. M43s biggest advantage has been the easier processing of the image because of the smaller sensor and therefore the cameras having more features. However in the past 3-4 years I haven't seen any new cameras taking advantage of that.

[@Jarymut]

@@mertmehmed6696 exactly. Now you can have equivalent parameters in much smaller body and lenses. It's cheaper too. So until you need to put your photo on a bus or a building you should use equivalent, more compact system. Actual professionals can keep their expensive and huge ff cameras.

[@miriammoriarty8588]

"Doesn't everyone want a gigantic, glass, light gathering phallus?" This killed me.

[@charlesnorwich5932]

Besides the weight and size one of the biggest advantages of the MFT is the SHARPNESS. Suck on that 😋 Full Frame.

[@zupperm]

Sounds like you guys are going to love the rumored F11 tele primes for canon RF

[@DGBomber]

From what I've seen the Tamron 28-200 seems to be very good optically, it's f2.8-5.6 and at 70mm it's still f4! It's not completely weater sealed but has some kind of sealing at least against dust, and it's the same size of the Olympus 12-100 f4. So I think it's a killer all in one lens, hope to see a review from you guys about it!

[@dpreview]

Editing one right now. - Jordan @ DPReview TV

[@DGBomber]

@@dpreview well, that was good timing ahah, glad to hear that, can't wait to see it!

[@jeremyjs8863]

Very good point. The gap was always there, but perhaps not viable given m4t powerhouses and state of ffm technology - both of which have shifted significantly

[@osirismarbles5177]

I got the complete wrong impression. Thought this was about lenses m43 users wanted that got closer to full frame. LIKE a 12-35 f/2. I don't need/want an equivalent 24-70 f/2.8, but I'd be MUCH happier w/ an equivalent 24-70 f/4 on an m43 body (over the f/5.6). Production of "almost full-frame" lenses on m43 that strike a compromise between slightly larger size and larger apertures would be life to m43 and probably steal the show from APS-C. OR here's an idea, how about a 12-35 f/1.7-2.8 (sounds like a standard ff kit lens to me)! a basic setup like this would be all an m43 user would need.

[@gregs4163]

The f stop equivalency is depth of field ONLY, you are still going to lose the light gathering ability on the FF side! Why do they keep pushing this myth with equivalency! I will always want the light gathering ability over the depth of field, you can always adjust to create a shallower depth of field in most cases. This is where m43 shines, fast, affordable, high quality glass.

[@pwx8460]

Exactly spot on. Agree, this optically incorrect equivalency thing drives me nuts, and may be the biggest reason m4/3 is in such trouble.

[@pwx8460]

@@bosstowndynamics5488 Yeah, exactly...so it's a wash. The issue is the myth gives the impression you get the same exposure shooting f8 on FF as f4 on m4/3 which is incorrect.

[@pwx8460]

@@bosstowndynamics5488 Notice the way the term fast glass is used. Fast because you can use a faster shutter speed. The adage, an f stop is an f stop has been around before digital was even conceived. Why stop with the comparison between FF and m43? Why not compare MF to FF to 'prove' that FF is somehow inferior to MF. I do believe some of the click baiting disinformation out there has now limited our choice of gear, which is bad for all of us, even if they don't know it.

[@ordinosaurs]

@@bosstowndynamics5488 This is complete hogwash. The FF lens gathers 4 times more light, granted, but spreads it 4 times further. Per area unit, the illumination is *exactly* the same. And it is very easy to prove : grab any FF lens adapter, put say... a FF 50mm f/1.8 on a MFT camera, expose and shoot, then take a native lens (more likely a 45/1.8, but it doesn't really matter), and the exposure will be the same. And if you're still in doubt, take a land camera, tape some iso 400 film on the back, and do the test on the film. The image circle will be different, not the exposure, give or take a little margin. The difference is now the technological age of MFT sensors that lag FF cameras by at least 5 years. See where FF was 5 years ago. Not pretty. And f number is an f number. It's the result of dividing the diameter of the front element by the focal length. There's no mention of the sensor size anywhere in the equation.

[@卢耶底]

@@bosstowndynamics5488 have you ever think about the focus speed between f8 lens and f4? Canon is making some f11 long lens, I mean, except the FF sensor, nothing else impressive. Besides, if the poor light is just ok for 300mm f4 iso800 M43, do you really think 600mm f8 iso3200 FF image is better?

[@svenegbers518]

So do the "new" Sony 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.5, and 50mm f/2.5 check those boxes? They are slower, light and compact...

[@FuegoProduccionesMX]

Loved that Criterion tee ❤️

[@NighthunterNyx]

Well the Samyang and Tamron lenses seem to fit the bill? Samyang 18/2.8, 35/2.8, 45/1.8, 75/1.8, Tamron 24/2.8, 35/2.8 and of course the f/2.8 zoom trio.......

[@jpr-tech]

I was just about to type this... but wanted to check in the comment section to make sure nobody said it already. You did! LOL I personally use the 35mm f2.8 on my a7s.

[@alparjuttner9095]

The notion of "equivalent F number" is very similar to the "Law of large number" in the sense that most people misunderstood them and use them in an inappropriate context. Even in this video. You may say that Micro Four Thirds 300mm F4 is equivalent to a full frame 600mm F8, but "equivalent" means that then all the advantages of full frame will completely vanish. You will have to use 2 stops higher ISO on full frame, thus the noise level and the dynamic range will be the same (for same megapixels). On the other hand, a 600mm F8 will still be larger (at least longer) compared to a 300mm F4 (assuming similar optical construction).

[@philippedugout2278]

Firstly a 300 f4 ff equivalent will still be f4.

[@ezekielfernandez4077]

Thanks for discussing that autofocus part... Cause maybe a fullframe 800mm f11 wont autofocus as good as a m43 400mm 5.6

[@madtoffelpremium8324]

Mirrorless cameras can genrally focus at a much lower F stops (like F11), because all of the light gets to the main sensor where the autofocus happens. DSLRs need more light (like F5.6-8) because most of the light coming in gets reflected into the OVF and only a small part gets redirected to the seperate AF sensor.

[@ezekielfernandez4077]

@@madtoffelpremium8324 yes i know... But im now talking about mirrorless vs mirrorless.. Wherein a fullframe lens will have lower light transmission than a crop sensor equivalent.... The dof will be equivalent but the light is not the same

[@madtoffelpremium8324]

@@ezekielfernandez4077 The light captured would be the same, since (when you compare MFT and FF) the light coming out of the lens would have 1/4th the brightness but hit a sensor 4x as large, therefore also the noise level would be the same. I am not sure if that light density difference would affect autofocus that much before you reach an apperature at which deffraction ruins your charpness anyway.