you (probably) don't need a full frame camera...

[@MicroFourNerds]

👉 Thanks to Storyblocks for sponsoring this video! Download unlimited stock media at one set price with Storyblocks: storyblocks.com/MicroFourNerds

[@sw4photographiekiel896]

In a nutshell: Learn to use your equipment properly instead of constantly looking for other cameras. I completely agree with you!

[@jmtphotographymedia]

Exactly. Cameras are too good to be bad in the past decade.

[@chrishowell5718]

@@sw4photographiekiel896... and be honest with yourself about why you are upgrading your gear. It's okay to collect technology for its own sake, and it's okay (within reason) to always have the latest and greatest kit as a status symbol. It's also okay to buy something new if it allows you to develop further when your existing kit is holding you back (which might mean that you can't even get started with macro without shelling out £30 for some extension rings, or it might mean that you really do need full frame and an f1.2 portrait lens to take you to the next level). Constantly blaming your gear for disappointing results without questioning whether it might be technique is just a recipe for spending huge sums upgrading to more expensive kit that you never make the most of. It's a fact of physics that you get less narrow depth of field with m4/3 than with larger sensors, but if you genuinely can't achieve some satisfactory degree of bokeh with m4/3 gear, you probably aren't capable of getting your money's worth out of a full- frame camera.

[@SuperReview]

10:40 Big agree. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. You don't need to "settle" for M43, you're just selecting a different set of priorities. That it's cheaper is a happy bonus.

[@oakbrookconsultants]

Emily remains a refreshing commonsense voice in the photography community. I love her videos particularly as I shoot Pentax Qs, Micro 4/3, APS-C and Full Frame as it suits me! Every point made is spot on and delivered without dogma. Long may she continue!

[@albertjurina2557]

Unpopular opinion? Shallow Depth of Field is overrated. I just sold all of my full-frame Canon gear and switched to M43. I've shot weddings using Full-Frame, APS-C, and M43 weddings, as well as landscapes, portraits, etc. It's all down to opinion. What's the "Best" format? The one you like to work with that gives you the results you like. It's that simple. What's not simple is how the internet has been given enough sway as a hive-mind for some people to shake or influence their opinions of themselves and others, rather than just enjoying the art of photography. Great video, great thoughts. Thank you for sharing!

[@ChrisDN]

f5.6 fo life yo!

[@RohamBroccoli]

@@ChrisDNF11 all year📸

[@jonathanscherer8567]

@@RohamBroccoli I think these technical elements only really matter to us. People viewing the photos don't care and won't notice or say anything. Most people are used to smartphone photos. They're completely satisfied with what they get out of them. Our expectation that we need to have Tony level background blur is a misconception we've been led to believe. It's a great way to get people to buy more expensive gear, so likely started as a marketing ploy.

[@reflux043]

​@@jonathanscherer8567 If you take a look at the albertjurina2557's comment, read it again from "whats not simple...", and you'll notice that your opinions have been swayed by camera conspiracies! Nobody uses the word tony (toneh), unless they have been influenced! I do agree with you on the smartphone thing, but i wouldn't say bokeh is overrated, that's just another thing youtube influencers say to make money on videos.

[@keithspillett5298]

In my experience, many people who rave about full frame depth of field have never actually used one 'in anger', and have never suffered the annoyance of doing a whole day's photography, only to discover NONE of the images are actually sharp!

[@hoanglong-nv6wv]

Every other “m43 photographers” have been abandoned the system after the sponsorship ended. I remembered all of them said “ why choose m43 instead of FF” and then … you guys know the rest. 😂. Happy to see you still love the system like this

[@huwalban]

One of the most honest and unbiased assessments of both formats that I've ever seen. Thank you for putting it out there. Oh, and btw as a landscaper I use both - not quite for the reasons you described - and play to the strengths each time I use it. Seasons greetings to you.

[@NorthWolfPhotography]

After being someone who has in the past been fully behind the "APS-C / Micro 43rds" camp and at some point in my hobby had a disdain for "Full Frame shooters being Snobs" I've come to realize after years of reflecting that ultimately it really comes down to using the right tool for the effect you want. When Full Frame became more accessible as used DSLRs flooded the market for cheap I took a moment to re-evaluate this line of thinking and now will shoot both. If there is any one thing that I've learned from collecting cameras as a sub-hobby to photography in general its that not being pigeonholed into one camera body, one format, and 1-3 lenses has huge advantages. I know a lot of "Pro" photographers will often think this is the case; but from an artistic point of view having more options with different sensor sizes, different lenses (from modern to adapted vintage lenses) and even different Manufacturers (since they all have different ways in which the camera will output contrast and colors yes even in RAW) really opens up a lot of tools as an Artist to be able to capture the world with a much wider brush. So yes, I now own pocket cameras, M43 Cameras, APS-C Bodies AND Full Frame. And even just having one of each or even just one other sensor size camera then your "main camera" really opens up a lot of options artistically.

[@joelconolly5574]

True. You don't need bigger sensors to take great photos. I do it with my smartphone often. Heck I'd get an APS-C just cause my work calls for it. The best cameras are always in your pocket and the best of people can work with whatever cameras you get your hands on. Skills first gear second.

[@Emerald_City_]

Exactly! The best, crucial and most critical part of your camera are your skills and your creativity… the human factor. I went hiking in the mountains with a young Russian girl once for a few days. In the end she had put me and my superb mirrorless camera fully to shame with her takes of the same places at the same moment using her old iPhone much more creatively than I did my advanced gear.

[@AKSARBENish]

Thanks!

[@MicroFourNerds]

Thanks so much ☺️

[@teepee63]

M43 and FF have different merits with a large Venn overlap. A case can be made for either so its really up to you as an individual to decide which system suits and then simply tune out the noise.

[@ImageMaven]

This is a must watch video before buying new gear. You made several great points Emily. Buy the camera you need for the type of photography you (mostly) want to do.

[@chrishowell5718]

I agree. I shoot a bit of everything: landscape, what you might term 'opportunistic wildlife', bit of sport, occasional planned wildlife, some portraits, have started trying some astro. The main reasons for going with m4/3 when I returned to interchangeable lens cameras were (1) it was at a price point I could justify as a hobbyist with no goal or intention of making any money or even attracting outside interest to my photos, and (2) it was gear that I was happy to carry to the top of mountains alongside overnight camping kit. The fact that I've been able to accumulate a selection of 8-9 lenses (7 lenses bought on top of the kit lens that came with the first camera plus my old Helios from my M42 days) for about the cost of 'upgrading' to a Sony FF camera has been a bonus. Portraits aside (and the portraits that I take are generally in circumstances where my camera is competing with the smartphones that are present, not a full-frame Nikon with an 85mm f1.4 lens), a relatively wide depth of field is preferable for what I'm shooting. I can afford to own, and am usually happy to carry just in case I might want to use it, the Olympus 45mm f1.8. If I had a full frame camera, I'm not sure that I would be able to justify owning an 85mm lens. I certainly wouldn't carry that Meike around in my pocket just in case, so if I found I wanted to shoot a portrait, at best I'd be using a 50mm 1.4, which has about half a stop more bokeh than the Oly, with a less optimum field if view for portraits, and more likely I'd be using a standard zoom towards its lower end and narrower aperture. I've literally carried my 100-400mm up mountains on the off chance that I might need it, and not taken it out of its case. To take the equivalent FF lens, well, firstly I could never justify the cost, and secondly the whole trip would need to be organized around the logistics of transporting the lens. Astro, maybe FF would be an advantage, but I'm nowhere near the point where my camera is what is holding me back.

[@Emerald_City_]

So, if I do all, I have to have both…? :)))

[@rkhayden]

Whenever I've been tempted to 'upgrade' from M43 to a full-frame camera, I've looked at what secondhand M43 lenses I could buy for the same money as the full-frame camera body. I probably have too many lenses now.😀

[@mw0ellie]

I too was tempted again to buy FF 😂 when comparing I thought.. that’s so expensive and heavy, why would I??? So now looking at lenses for m43 instead lol

[@dopravnivideacz]

Before buying GH7 I was thinking about moving to FF world and found out that about 90 % of my work (mostly video, a few photos here and there) would be worse with a FF camera. I'm not a shallow DOF fanatic, I'm only rarely shooting at night / in very bad light. On the other side I do a lot of shooting outside, so the portability is important for me. Also, 5.7K60 H265 is my most used video mode on my GH6 / GH7 (cropping ability + smooth framerate for faster movement without RAW hassle) and there's only one single FF camera that does do that - Z6 III which has many other downsides. Not to mention using longer focal lengths with FF vs MFT - Lumix 100-300 is 520 g, FF 600 mm lenses start at 2 kg. So a single tele FF lens alone weights about the same as MFT body + 35-100 F2.8 + 100-300 + 12-35 F2.8 + 9 F1.7. Yikes... I would buy / rent FF only as an addition to that 10 % where I would benefit from its low-light capabilities, if it's cheap enough. Going FF would only be viable for me after there's FF version of GH7 or a camera that has similar video features in crop mode + lenses with similar weight as MFT. I'm not expecting that anytime soon, but maybe S1H II will surprise me. 🙂

[@mauricio.montoya]

I bought my first and only full frame camera a few years ago. It’s a LUMIX S1, I love it and I can assure you that is way more camera than I need for my photography style and I’ll be rocking my trusty S1 for many years more! Love your channel Emily, happy holidays! 😊

[@MicroFourNerds]

The S1 is so good. I was a day one adopter of that! I eventually sold it for the S5 as I preferred the smaller size, but in terms of quality the S1 is sooooo good

[@mauricio.montoya]

@@MicroFourNerds thank you for your reply!! It makes me happy that you appreciate that camera, nobody talks about it 😊

[@andystiller3793]

I have been using MFT cameras for years. I decided to get a Full Frame camera for a few reasons. The reasons were autofocus tracking (the OM 1 had just been released and I was buying used), low light performance and dynamic range. The Sony camera I got did the job but I noticed a few things. In low light there was almost no difference as I needed to use a narrow aperture. The single auto was slower and less reliable. The dynamic range made more difference than I expected. I'm glad I got the camera and kept my MFT gear. I've learned so much more using them both.

[@juliette-mansour]

Emily, I love this so much! It reminds me a lot of the digital versus film debate. For many years, I was deeply involved in that debate until I realized and made the point that these are all different genres of art being practiced. It’s about whatwhat tool when? It’s not what is better. As always, great video!

[@keithspillett5298]

As a retired photographer with a seriously knackered back after a career spanning nearly five decades, I have owned/used several M43 cameras and smaller APS-C ie Sony 6000 range due to size/weight considerations. I'm currently using a Sony A6500 with Sigma and Sony glass. I think my favourite cameras have been Olympus EM10 mk3s and Lumix G80, but I shoot a lot of transport videos, so the Sony A6500 wins for its AF capabilities, which is how I appear to have (perhaps finally) settled on the A6XXX range. The A6500 has very good IBIS, though not quite as good as the M43s, which is good enough. Keep making the great videos 😊

[@jerry2357]

Think back to the 1930s. Many photographers were still using 4x5 inch plate cameras, others were using medium format like Rolleiflex, but a lot of innovative photography was done by photographers using the miniature 35 mm format, e.g. Henri Cartier-Bresson. For street photography, the smaller film size actually gave better results because of a larger depth of field at a given aperture. Nothing has changed. For observational photography, a smaller sensor is often better.

[@007skytraveler]

Very well explained!

[@kevinl1492]

I shoot events on M4/3 and FF. The problem with M4/3 is that I am often shooting at my self imposed limit of ISO 6400 when using f/2.8 zooms. A drop in light levels makes your setup no longer viable. So, you use fast primes on M4/3 or switch to FF. But for sufficient DOF, FF often needs f/5.6. FF can handle higher ISO, but you close to the limit. Time to break out the flash.

[@jimmay8627]

Speedboosters also offer a way to "claw back" some of full frame's advantages on m43. I bought a Metabones 0.64x speedbooster to use my existing Canon glass on a Panasonic G7 and now a G9, which effectively expands the sensor to APS-H dimensions (1.28x crop) and light gathering capacity. I'm not a professional so I might fail to notice the potential image quality loss with speedboosters (likely, more flares and a bit of contrast loss at least), but I love that I can leverage less expensive (if bulkier) EF glass to get wider than FF 24mm.

[@Dj0sten]

This is why it's important to actually go out and shoot instead of only ever obsessing over gear. If you only ever trusted online opinions about these cameras then you'd be led to believe that anything less than full frame is totally unusable in low light. I've made my living off M43 cameras for years in a variety of environments and I've never had complaints about the quality, ESPECIALLY since Lightroom introduced their Denoise AI, which have cleaned up my shots considerably. If I see someone saying that full frame is the only way to shoot something professionally then I can assume they've never actually done client work or are being paid by the brand. The only thing that I wish I could get on M43 is a proper 35mm f/1.8 look, not completely blowing out the background but softening it more than my 10-25 1.7 does, but it's not a big enough deal to me to consider switching over.

[@maximvasilyev8003]

Sigma 16mm f/1.4? Olympus 17mm f/1.2?

[@Dj0sten]

@@maximvasilyev8003 I had the Sigma and didn't like it; it had massive chromatic aberration in high contrast areas and the shitty focus by wire made it almost unusable for video. I'm sure the Olympus is good but I ain't spending all that on a prime, lol.

[@michaelwausr1336]

Seems, You are the Micro Four Third Queen! ))) One hour ago streamed an such a number comments....congratulations. Regards from Germany

[@jmcgregor316]

There is so much info in this video, I'm will have to watch it more than once.

[@turtledovechen176]

switch to M43 for birding for a while now, been loving the experience, its light weight and small so i can run around looking for birds not standing in one place with my giant camera on a tripod, and i still have amazing reach, and with the weight and space i save i can have more gear like a spotting scope and a big bright 40+mm bino and my arms and back will still be in one piece at the end of a long day birding

[@jonathanscherer8567]

I have so much fun with M43. I think that counts for a lot. How comfortable are you working with it? How fast is your muscle memory? How much fun do you have?

[@Eti1968]

Very well spoken and you made it very understandable. Great video!

[@Cyborgon]

Thank you so much, i needed this video for reassurance. I seen a video not long ago on the s9 and my brain was like "i want it now" but then its full frame and i only have m43 lenses, then the thought of the cost and how i could work it out. This gave me the confidence again on why i chose m43 in the first place and over fullframe.

[@zantigar]

Great objective comparison of formats - personally, I just LOVE the compactness of M43 cameras and lenses. I have attained beautiful results from this more portable format which I would never have attempted hauling around a full frame. Thanx for this excellent video!

[@TheHumanPalindrome]

Love your glasses, Emily! 👌🏻

[@RJPhotographics]

Lot of work has gone into this video - really well illustrated :) I shot Nikons best low light cameras for years and left them when they abandoned their lower MP pro cameras. Now shooting S5ii and OM-1. My wedding photographer used ancient Fuji cameras, the shots are often noisy, but he caught the details. I'm aiming to do likewise. If I get an emotional kick from an OM-1 shot at 51,200ISO, then it's getting delivered. I'm now all for low light AF capability and reliability - caring less and less about noise. The OM-1 is delivering sharper shots in low light than any of my FF cameras have managed - granted I've not tried Z9 but I do not want nor need that high MP spec. 8k hasn't landed, everyone uses 1080p screens, print is still 300ppi, getting that moment caputured is what counts - I hope the camera market reacts to those facts.

[@agentofthewild684]

You should check out the GH5S and its low-light capabilities-it’s pretty impressive. However, an updated version of that camera, like a GH7S, would be incredible. The features you described above would truly benefit from a new Micro Four Thirds camera designed for Low Light and Auto Focus. 8K will probably fade away like HD-DVD; 4K is more than sufficient. Many of the commercials I deliver are still requested in 1080p format. I’ve only sold a few 3x4-foot photos, and most of my prints don’t exceed 36 inches. Megapixels are mainly useful for ultra-high-end prints and heavy cropping. If you frame your shots correctly, MFT works perfectly 90% of the time. Don’t get me wrong-I have an S1, and I love it, but I still use my GH5 frequently.

[@swismylife42]

This is one of the most important digital photography channels in KZbin. Please keep up the awesome work. Always a balanced take filled with practical insights.

[@Emerald_City_]

One strong indication of a quality and personality of a channel is the spirit and the noble level of comments it gets. It’s been a pleasure to go through the comments here… one can learn a lot from them, too.

[@DTUFINOPhotography]

100% correct. I'm looking to pick up a m43 olympus camera and a standard 20mm lens to compliment it.

[@neildonaldson2454]

Thanks for the review Emily. Never had any issue with the OM-1 and noise per se. I have DXO RAW ver2 that cleans any noise out when using high ISO's. As soon as we talk about smaller sensors with more noise to a newbie ...you can hear the fear! But your review explains the pros and cons very well. As for landscape photography the OM-1 has High Res mode and can work very well uplifting information and Dynamic range if required. At the end of the day, as you say, its about your individual needs and what system suits you best.

[@michaelgabes7574]

Great Wrap up! spot on! You just explained why I own a OM1 and since last year a S5II. Macro (60mm)and Tele (100-400) with my beloved OM1. Portrait, events (85 f1.4) and LowLight (35 f1.2) with my S5II. But for Paparazzi Type a Portraits, untypically the 75mm 1.8 MFT ist my favorite! Small package which will not frighten the People combined with a lightning fast autofocus (faster than the one of the S5II). The good thing is, that nowadays we have the opportunity to choose the best of both worlds.!

[@anta40]

I still shoot with 35mm film for fun, so having a full frame camera is a practical move: very same lenses, on a more modern body. That said, I think APSC and FF cameras are oversaturated markets. Why don't take the extreme path for fun: - M43 for daily use (very compact system) - And medium format for ultimate image quality :D

[@masanthar]

Couldn't say it better myself. This last year or more, I do the exact same thing and have found shooting film again a liberating experience, but also carry a small MFT as well. I also use it as a lightmeter for my MF camera reasonably well. Fun times...

[@emilebaudot904]

A fabulous comparison and well put over too... I certainly love my G9, G9ii & G80. Thank you.

[@ej_tech]

I *sort off* have both. I got my Lumix GX85 as my usual go to camera, and then 35mm film cameras for that full frame and film look.

[@raily9713]

The sun angle outside isn't the same all over the world... And I can tell you living in London for a couple of months I was pleased enough with my beloved gx80... But when I turn back to Spain (much more harsh light) the urgency to have more dynamic range in a bigger sensor becames painfully obvious... Any modern camera is a good choice as long as it fits the circumstances

[@masanthar]

Hmmm, hadn't thought of that being used to have flexible files from ff I shoot m3/4 with a more contrasty look in mind (like I shoot film) and I think you just told me why.

[@ליהלי-צ8נ]

Thanks for this comprihensive video.Very helpful for your choice.Clarifies to me why I enjoy my G92 and didn't switch to the S52.

[@StunDamage]

As a full-frame shooter, I don't hold fond memories of my APS-C days. In retrospect, though, my misgivings have more to do with the camera rather than sensor size. Canon 2000D's sensor got unusably noisy above 800 iso. Modern Canon APS-C's (as well as Fuji's) comfortably go to 5-6k iso without shitting themselves. Denoising algorithms advanced a lot, as well (I particularly recommend DxO PhotoLab). At this point, APS-C and M43 should be fine for professional work, as long as bokeh isn't a key part of your aethetics.

[@Eatmeraw]

True that. Cant fight physics there. Proof is in the pudding. At night is when the weakness of a smaller sensor shows.

[@humanelements2]

The ISO invariance is a good thing to consider. OM cameras are at least somewhat ISO-invariant but I find that proper ISO selection gives you better results than expecting the kind of recovery from underexposure you'll get from a Fuji or a Sony. Plus the dynamic range is biased towards the highlights. There's significant highlight recovery in MFT cameras; slightly better than APS-C, in my own testing. So ETTR when shooting RAW. I think that's why many folks are disappointed when they try MFT. They expect the same kind of shadow recovery and don't see it b/c they're shooting like they would other brands. Simply give MFT sensors plenty of light and raise the ISO as needed!

[@frankinblackpool]

My heart is set on getting a S5m2x and it will be mine, once I pull the trigger. My mate has the S5m2 and we did a low light test in the house with the curtains drawn and photographed a small subject under my computer desk. We did the best we could to make allowances for depth of field, focal lengths and what ever else we could think of. He took a shot with his S5m2 and I took the same shot with my G9m2. I had to do some digital magic with DxO Photolabs Noise reduction just to get my image to get close to his image straight out of camera with no editing at that point. I'm still keeping my G9m2 because of all the positives you mentioned but the S5m2 with its kit lenses blow's away any comparable image that I can take with my G9m2 and its no slouch either. Bye bye GH6 to finance my new toy.

[@starbase218]

I think, when choosing a sensor size, this approach might be useful: first determine what kind of lenses you want. Do you want an all-in-one superzoom lens (which will be slow), or do you want maybe fast zooms with a shorter focal length, or somewhere in between? Or maybe you want primes, if you're comfortable with that. Maybe a prime for a shorter focal length combined with zooms? Anyway, this has to do with how you will be using the camera. And also, understand that i.e. fast zooms will often give you higher quality, faster autofocus, maybe weather sealing, etc etc. Once you have decided on that, how big and heavy, or small and lightweight, do you want to go? Considering that big and heavy comes with possibilities like a smaller DoF, more dynamic range, and higher resolution (if you can get good lenses - maybe the all-in-one superzoom is not so great for that). I'm saying this because an f/5.6 zoom on fullframe, an f/4 zoom on APS-C, and an f/2.8 zoom on MFT will all give you roughly the same capabilities, except that any f/5.6 zoom will probably cover a wider focal range than an f/4 zoom. and any f/4 zoom will probably cover a wider focal range than an f/2.8 zoom. But f/2.8 zooms are probably the best quality. So it's really a matter of trade-offs here.

[@MeAMuse]

Cameras are just tools. For most my work I use full frame. I also have APS-C, and a 1 inch sensor camera with a 24-200mm equivalent lens on. I used to have M4/3 but got rid of it because the pocketable 1 inch sensor camera does everything I needed from M4/3 in a smaller package that actually fit in my pocket. Hell - I rarely use APS-C these days (that’s what my wife uses). The long and short of it is that if I am carrying a camera I either want pocketable, or am happy to carry something big that is comfy to hold and will enable me to get any shot I want without limiting my creativity (the lenses I choose control my limitations when carrying this). You can make the argument that it is lighter than full frame, but I found that I could get better results from my full frame simply by just pairing it with super zoom… and ironically that worked out as lighter because I didn’t carry lots of lenses, it was cheaper (because I only needed a super zoom), and I didn’t miss shots because of having the wrong lens on. M4/3 just does not have a place in my workflow because it’s this no man’s land that does not fit in my pocket and only limits me. BUT again… this is what works well for me… they are tools. Other people have different priorities and would rather M4/3 over my 2 camera approach for flexibility.

[@WhiteWulfe]

I think one of the biggest issues is how media and photography sites continue to perpetuate this ideology that "full frame" is "the one true, best option", while completely ignoring use case. Look at the fact that some sites will complain about how Micro Four Thirds is (dead/dying/point/other verbiabge indicating such here), and then only compare body size and weight, while completely ignoring comparable lens options. Or how they'll complain about how much more expensive it's gotten for the flagship models, all while ignoring the simple fact that hey, uhm, there's a lot more tech packed into said camera body to go along with the native benefits of the sensor's size. The part I find hilarious is how the media will go on and on and on about how there's "no midrange offerings in micro four thirds" all because the companies that create cameras for such know it's somewhat of a matured market (especially if one looks at lens offerings), and so lean into slower development cycles, so they can focus on more noticeable improvements between releases (instead of being like how the full frame mirrorless camera market seems to have been the past few years, with new releases every 2-2.5 years but not much really seems to have changed to justify the $2-3k price tag attached to the new body). I wish the media would focus more on what something is useful for, instead of going "this is the standard, why doesn't everything else do what it does"... I dunno, maybe because I want to pack more than a single lens with me for the day? The food I pack in my bag gets lighter as the day goes on, since it's being eaten, but my camera gear continues to weigh the same. There's also the whole bit about how people don't notice the smaller camera as easily - a point you've made by being able to bring a telephoto lens into the superbowl in the past! I've had people try and tell me that full frame is the only way to go with astrophotography... But they're talking about night sky, when I'm talking about deep sky. Some of the most popular "inexpensive" (quotes used because $2k USD is NOT cheap in the real world, but it's "inexpensive" in the astrophotography world) actively cooled below ambient temperatures astrophotography cameras use micro four thirds sensor sizes, and some even use the 1" format! Why? Well first, they're low noise sensors, secondly they're more affordable, and third it's a LOT easier to cool a sensor that's a quarter the size! Plus, in astrophotography, that 2x crop factor (compared to full frame) is actually a perk, because it means you don't need anywhere near the size of optics to be able to get what you want in frame at a decent size. With deep sky photography, what matters most is the sensor having less noise, you being in a low light pollution area, and time. Yup, time is one of the biggest factors in a lot of cases, because you're using image stacking to pull the detail out and reject the noise. But yeah, being able to pair a micro four thirds camera with a 250mm f4.9 telescope like the William Optics Red Cat 51 gives you a nice, small, portable deep sky astrophotography setup that doesn't weight too much.

[@chrishowell5718]

"Full frame" is largely marketing hype. Travel back in time to a late 80s camera club, and you'll almost certainly be able to find someone delighted to tell you at length why you'll never get a really good portrait out of your 35mm SLR, and what you really need is a Hasselblad or a Mamiya shooting roll film. 35mm became the standard because it allowed the development of movie cameras that were tolerable light and portable, and subsequently stills cameras with the same characteristics. 35mm was always a compromise, not some platonic ideal, either side of which is inescapable inferior. Given that even the earliest m4/3 cameras have better low-light performance than the heyday of film (when ISO 1200 was fast, specialist, and expensive), while *better* low light performance is available with bigger sensors, that doesn't stop m4/3 being perfectly adequate for most uses.

[@Emerald_City_]

Hi, Emily! Whoever chose the frame for your glasses is a genius (also the T-shirt choice is ingenious!). You run the only female channel I’ve been following… not because you are the prettiest (I’m sure you are to many a viewer), but because you combine the genuine gear knowledge with the true passion and devotion for photography and have stylish samples to show. On top of that you are a spontaneous and funny presenter, but there’s some serious professionalism behind the scenes too… I’ve stumbled upon some Russian channels where they recommend you as reference, imagine that! Just that you know. Generally, my soul brightness and joy level both rise having watched an episode of yours. Btw, that brief comparison sample with the S5ii and G9ii show also some color and dynamic range deviation, but of course those are probably not lab-level comparisons so never mind. I’m so much tempted to try out the S5ii, now less expensive than the G9ii. But then again I humble myself to the fact that I still have to learn so much more about my G9 original. Greetings from the chilly Lowlands…

[@silverstreettalks343]

In my Ricoh XR2S film camera days, a friend had a Bronica 645 as well as a Pentax MX. He loved his Bronica's great photos, and encouraged me to consider a Bronica or even a Kiev medium format camera. He was right that medium format outclassed 35 mm -- if you were a wedding/commercial photographer as he was. But if you took photos at family or church picnics or did a slide show of a conference to share back at work nextweek, 35 did the job and was su much more convenient. When my APS-C SLR died a day into a four week holiday in the UK and EU, and I grabbed a 1" sensor ICL camera to make do, I knew I was changing to something closer to the old 110 film camera size, but I had had usable 119-sized shots when nothing else was available, while another friend had had a Pentax 110, and loved it and its images. In fact, that 1" camera, got me great shots everywhere except the worst lit spots. You have said it repeatedly, and so have many others, particularly in the MFT world: You mainly need the camera which suits your own photography style and interests. I'll add that, if you are going for FF when you don't need it, you should consider whether you are being driven by snobbery or fear of being out of place, and that's an emotional problem, not a photographic one.

[@jesuso2307]

You are single handedly getting me back into photography.

[@rangersmith4652]

As I get back into photography, to include decorating a room with prints of my own photos, I decided to treat myself to a camera I knew I did not need but had wanted since it was released -- a Canon 5D "classic." Mine is near mint with a 4-digit shutter count and came into my possession for well under $300 US. I consider that a major bargain. It's no walkabout camera, that's for sure. I'll be using it for what I have termed "in-situ object portraiture."

[@thomasa.243]

The biggest problem with M43 is that most of the cameras out there typically have older hardware. Yes, there is the G9, GH7 and OM1 but compared to full frame you have a much larger range overall, you have the Sonys, Nikons, Canons, Panasonics and each of the brands have multiple ranges of full frame cameras that have newer hardware compared to most M43 cameras. Take a newer sensor that is equivalent to say the Sony A7IV, make it smaller and putting it in a M43 body would result in images with a similar noise to that of the A7IV. But we do not have that :/

[@Emerald_City_]

Nobody else mentions this. A brilliant remark, so true!

[@tallaganda83]

I just bought an OM5 for travel photography, still have a Z7 and still will keep it for the occasions I need it, like astro but I must say when taking the Z7 on trips I was barely taking it out of my bag and in particular with lenses I had to be very selective with what I brought with me. At least with the OM5 I know I am going to actually bring it with me when I go for a walk to buy some street food or something as opposed to being a dead weight in my bag.

[@fernandoguerrero2895]

I have the Olympus e-m1 mk3 and Panasonic S5II. Regarding shadows recovery. If you use Adobe Lightroom and you Denoise the Olympus image before doing any editing, the amount of shadow information you can recover later is almost as good as the full frame and almost no noise. It is amazing what small sensors and new Denoise technology can do. I bought my full frame camera because I wanted better low light capabilities, but now I am just thinking about selling my full frame camera. Using Denoise allows me to pull information almost as much as full frame.

[@andresgonzalezcerda7635]

So true!!. And topaz gigapixel make the 48 mp after denoise.

[@jamesmlodynia8757]

I have apsc, full frame and 4/3 camera bodies from various manufacturers, i have phographed a variety of subjects including events indoors and out doors, i purchased my first full frame DSLR when I got more involved in event photography especially weddings,it isaPentaxK1 MKII. Just over 16 years of digital photography I have every camera i have purchased and during this time I have printed many photographs and the majority are from the APSC cameras. I enjoy using a variety of cameras, years ago wide angle lens, you had to go full frame but today that is no longer the case, my widest lens is a Fujifilm 8mm, non fish eye prime, it is much smaller than my old 12 - 24mm Pentax f4. Modern day APSC camera are very good and the greater DOF makes it easier to take landscapes without focus stacking. For me for travel or shooting dogs running 🏃‍♂️ through a stream chasing a ball or taking photos of my wife in the pool or hottub in Aruba a 4/3 camera is my go to camera.

[@alibarancelik8903]

Another point: If you have a silly amount of 35mm film lenses (like I do), with full frame what you see is what you get. No crop factor to worry about.

[@kingston24-x2h]

Thanks. I currently have the the OM 1 Mk 2 and just looked at the Nikon D850. It was huge. Going to work on getting better with my OM 1 Mk 2.

[@tori8380]

Thanks for talking about photography rather than photography gear!

[@matshagonius6022]

Girls like pictures. Boys like metall. 😂😂😂

[@garycope5332]

Hi Emily. First of all, love your videos. I like how you try to show all sides of the equation, and your obvious passion for photography and sense of humor make your videos enjoyable, regardless of the subject matter. I began my photography journey a long time ago (in the 1970's), in the days of film. For me, the argument about sensor size, and indeed about DSLR or Mirrorless, is a new one! 😁 I began using digital cameras with a crop sensor, because it was cheap. I now use Full frame, crop sensor and M43 cameras. I use them in circumstances I think they are suited for. When I was younger, lugging a full frame 5D Mkiii and 24 to 70 f2.8 lens up a hill to get a waterfall shot was no problem. Carrying a 7D Mkii with a 600mm lens around in the bush to shoot wildlife was a doddle! Now I'm in my 60's I find these tasks a little more daunting, so the EM1 Mkii and the EM5 Mkii do these jobs for me most of the time. I still use the full frame and crop sensor cameras, but I am finding I gravitate towards the M43 a LOT! At the end of the day, I take photographs for me, not anyone else, and if I like the end result, everyone else can go jump! (I like it when my wife puts one on the wall, though) Keep up the great work, All the best from Gary in Western Australia!

[@Emerald_City_]

Somehow I think the most satisfying of all is when you do things for the others, to make them happy!

[@garycope5332]

@@Emerald_City_ I absolutely agree with that sentiment; however, I have other reasons for doing photography and pleasing others is not always the reason.😁

[@Emerald_City_]

@@garycope5332 I can get that :=))

[@nicolasguillenc]

Love your content!

[@frankinblackpool]

The Alyn Wallace Astronomy Book has an entire chapter on ISO Invariance. It takes a bit to get your head around but once you understand then happy days. Very few cameras are 100% Invariant while the majority of new cameras have sweet spots for invariance. In simple terms my camera can take a low light image with an ISO of 3200 and I can take the same image at ISO 800. In post I can bump up the ISO to get a good exposure as if I had shot at 3200. Basically the ISO is an abstract setting in situations like this in low light. However if you were in low light and all of a sudden the scene lit up for what ever reason like an Arora exploded above your head then the ISO 800 setting would capture the scene and protect the highlights. If you shot the same scene at ISO3200 when the sky lit up with the Arora then kiss goodbye those highlights because you've just blown them and there is nothing that you can do to get that information back. ISO Invariance is an insurance policy in low light where you can use as low an ISO as physically possible to get away with, as if you shot the scene with the correct exposure and ISO settings. This is how you could save the wedding photo with such a low ISO. I'm guessing that you had to work some digital noise reduction because the ISO was a little too low but it saved the shot. Alyn describes it all in his book. He even did a Tutorial on how you can work out the limits for your own camera.

[@starbase218]

With an ISO invariant camera, if you shoot at a low ISO (say ISO 100), and pull up say 5 stops in post-processing, you should not get any more noise than when you would have shot at ISO 3200 to start with. You can actually get more dynamic range as well, because highlights arre less likely to clip. The only "but" is that, because your photos are digitally stored with a certain amount of bits per pixel, when you raise the exposure in post, you might lose resolution in terms of graduations. E.g. from very dark grey to lighter grey, might not have the same amount of "steps" in between as you would see when shooting at ISO 3200. This is because the ISO in camera is applied to the analog signal, so before conversion to digital.

[@truckerzachbell]

I'm very happy with my Canon crop sensor cameras. They're small, light, beginner friendly, cheap, and highly durable. And, I often have stuff put up on billboards and projector screens with an R100 or M50 with acceptable, if not GREAT results. Pair these with a superzoom like the RF-S 18-150, RF 24-240, or EF-M 18-150, and you'll be very happy. For you Micro Four Thirds shooters, the Olympus (OM System) 12-100 is another lens that I love.

[@ivarfjeldheim5037]

I love your videos. I just pulled my Leica D-Lux 7 A BATHING APE x STASH from the shelf. :-) Thanks.

[@AlyxEvans]

As someone who has a shiny (well, it's matte black) full frame camera as a workhorse, I mostly just use older 'crap' (according to certain types of forum dweller who never go outdoors to touch some grass) cameras for my personal stuff. I either use my old OG Sony A7 with one of the tiny Sony f/2.5 primes, one of my two old CCD DSLRs, one of my too many Lumix compact cameras, or one of my way too many film cameras. At a certain point IQ is just good enough for most purposes, and loads of cameras can reach that 'good enough' level.

[@marklawson8346]

As ever Emily you talk a lot of sense personally I use both but use manual lenses and the is a few good aftermarket companies who make terrific manual lenses which take great pictures great again keep the videos coming 😊

[@jonathanscherer8567]

For shallow depth of field, I find myself using the Panny 25mm f/1.7. It's surprisingly good for a cheap little lens. I do wish it were weather sealed. But that would drive up the price.

[@RockWILK]

There are so many really fast lenses for micro 4/3 that kind of makes the entire subject a moot point. The only real difference is depth of field, and how much light you can get into the camera, but those are not real issues anymore. Not really. Unless you’re just into specs and not really making any art at all, it just doesn’t matter. If you know what you’re doing, you can pretty much do whatever you want with a GH5 and not feel any real limitations at all. Having said that, I loved the video anyway. :-) By the way, my main camera is an original S5, but that’s just because I bought it before I had ever used micro 4/3. I found a GH5 for $475 and bought it because I needed a second camera for a project, and I realized that if I had bought that camera first, I never would have felt the need to get a full frame or APSC camera. The GH5 is a movie making machine. :-)

[@dazsly]

Just bought a om system 20mm f1.4 its great 😀 M43 ftw

[@happilicious]

I think it's good to just try different system out and stick with what you like. There are so many camera bodies and lens available. Right tool for the right job. What I do find is a group of people are very vocal about their opinions, and rationality just fades away when someone says something heavily biased about either systems.

[@matshagonius6022]

You made my day..... 🥰🥰🥰.

[@nickadams1051]

That a denser 43 sensor gives sharper images is nonsense. The image circle is proportionally smaller as well.

[@NiSE_Rafter]

I used to dream about upgrading to full frame when I started with an apsc D5600 in 2018, but I've ended up selling and switching to M4/3 instead because I realized how much I value size/weight during my hikes as my knees get worse. Zero regrets. Love my Lumix G95. Now if only they'd make a G95 update with features from the G9ii. I like the mediocre built in flash for convenience and the smaller body, but I really wish I had the improved autofocus when trying to get pictures of animals.

[@slothlovechunk]

ISO invariance just means that you're not actually changing the sensitivity of the sensor, only changing how the signal is amplified. If the signal is close to the noise floor, you will amplify a lot of noise when you amplify the signal regardless of whether or not the sensor is ISO invariant. I'd say ISO invariance is only relevant as to whether or not you over/under expose images, since you don't want to amplify a signal into being clipped that you would have had just as much resolution as if you didn't amplify the signal when you captured it.

[@allthegearnoidea69]

Brilliant Emily. That edit must’ve taken forever.

[@deckoizkraja3107]

Hi. Can you make video - The best MFT pancake lenses or pocketable lenses ?

[@athmaid]

Those glasses look great on you!

[@nigelcliff7390]

I still use Olympus but I got a Sony full frame as I shoot a lot of vintage manual lenses and I like to have the same field of view as the lenses gave on film

[@bigrobotnewstoday1436]

I will agree you're shelves look better when filming in full frame. However the white balance is more pleasing in the full frame clip when you go to M43 the colors are cooler. I just think warmer coolers are more cozy when it comes to skin tones most of the time. Plus it's winter now.😂

[@stephenfinch4534]

Good Video Emm

[@Ancient_West]

I used to have an a6000 with the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and I talked myself into going FF because I NEEDED it and professionals use FF...... I regret it so much. I would still be way happier with that a6000 combo.

[@MikeLikesChannel]

The full frame Sony *spanks* that A6000 in low light though. My god 1600 ISO on the A6000 looks like 6400 on full frame.

[@Ancient_West]

@ yeah but doesn’t matter if you shoot portraits at golden hour.

[@MikeLikesChannel]

@@Ancient_West very true. I’m a blue hour kinda guy. ISO 3200 is my usual 😆

[@pentagramyt417]

@@MikeLikesChannel I can relate... but in wildlife (overall, so birds and so on..)I was quite wishing a "more iso capabilites on my A6400", anything over 8.000 was quite not satisfying me in IQ and noise reproduction... so I upgraded to A7IV... and I can say some photos are marvelous and SOOOO CLEAN at ISO 12.800, like really.. but I still think A6700 would be better option, especially at free 300 mm equivalent from crop factor at 600 mm. In this case I think OM System 150-400 with f4.5 would be the better move, since it's literally one stop of light more, and I don't think A6700 would be different than OM-1, let's say at ISO 6400. They would be the same. I am not as happy of having A7-IV as I thought I will be. It produces stunning images, and have twice better colours at ISO 100-400, but in the other way, it's limitating me REALLY HARD, because I lose 50% of pixels for cropping by using APS-C mode.

[@Emerald_City_]

But why do you crop…?

[@dasaen]

I think this debate is largely played by people that don’t put enough effort to solve a technical limit of a system with creativity and skill, and just pour money into it. Is not impossible to shoot fast wildlife in FF, and is not impossible to shoot low light in m43, is just harder on each. And generally when people don’t put this effort, what I see is their photos look bad, regardless of the system. You give a FF wildlife photographer the 40-150f2.8, and they will take great pictures with it from real close to the animal like it was a 300f2.8. And I have seen medium format studio portrait photographers, do night time portraits with the olympus 25mm and 45mm f1.2, and they look as amazing.

[@Emerald_City_]

Exactly! The best, crucial and most critical part of your camera are your skills and your creativity… the human factor. I went hiking in the mountains with a young Russian girl once for a few days. In the end she had put me and my superb mirrorless camera set fully to shame with her takes of the same places at the same moment using her old iPhone much more creatively than I did my advanced gear.

[@TaylorFade]

Having this exact personal conundrum at the moment- FF vs M43. And shared it in your group. Sadly, I am no closer to a decision.

[@schwerdtr]

I do a lot of Astrophoto with my mft equipment. Sometimes it is frustrating to stack so mich more photos in comparison to 35mm-format. On the other hand - there are so wonderful fast mft lenses that can be used wide open ... and all the additional equipment is also much lighter (tripod, tracker, ...). I started to make astrophotography with my action cam 360° ... milkyway, aurora borealis ... For other photos: my mft equipment has a lot of advantages ...

[@pankajnjoshi9673]

Are you using OM System or Panasonic camera for astro?

[@masanthar]

Well ff seems to hit the golden ratio for image quality, portability and features. I always felt my aps-c camera was lacking and ff made my shooting easier. That being said, I am very pleased by the results I get from the tiny gx800 even at night (sensor size limitations considering) so go figure... Love to carry that little camera.

[@MartinGamperX]

Since I use DXO Photolab and my Olympus OM-D E-M1 III, noise isn’t a problem for me anymore!

[@steventhomas231]

I use m43rds and full frame. Mostly my Olympus em10 mark ii for travel and z 6 for other things. My z6 is definitely better for some things particularly for shallow depth of field and also raising shadows, noise and general usability. But I love my Olympus for travelling light. The best benefit being is the small zoom size.

[@donald5378]

Are you off to Tokyo for the S1H Mk II video next week then ?

[@SF-MCMLXVII]

I came from APSC Fujifilm which I like very much and still use. But there is a difference in the jump to FF (vintage digital in my case). The Canon 6D and Canon 5D Classic images are simply sublime, look more film like and just look great without adjusting in post processing. Get a great look from my Fujifilm JPEGs too, but there is a difference between the two.

[@dawnd9222]

AHHHH that bubblegum pink Pentax. Drooling.......🤤

[@HughRogers609]

"Are you using a full frame, APSC or M43 camera for our wedding?" said no couple planning their wedding, ever.

[@aspenknight7237]

I'm FOLLOWING you because you have the USS Voyager in your video! LoL!! 🖖🥰

[@mashamatt]

The one inch censor on my dji osmo pocket 3 is pretty amazing. Cellphones can be used for content creation. M43 systems with dual native iso have really changed the m43 game... my fuji xh2 shoots absolutely stunning 8k pro res log internal that looks amazing on the big screen in screenings against films shot on red and ari cameras... and my nikon zf auto focuses in practically complete darkness and cleans up very nicely shots at over 12,000 iso. These days... modern sensors are amazing. Just find what works for you every camera regardless of sensor size, has trade-offs.

[@davidmccarthy6061]

Fortunately, our GX85 should last us the rest of our lives and I won't need to think much about gear again.

[@SKLAD_UMA_18]

" you (probably) don't need a full frame camera..." - absolutely agree! That's the story of my last 10+ yrs in the filming industry... :)))

[@Mar.vin.S]

Sehr gutes Video mit vielen Informationen. Was mur sehr gut gefallen hat, ist das sie die Audiotrack von youtube eingestellt haben. Somit kann ich das video auf deutsch hören und muss nicht so viel lesen 👍 bitte die nächsten Videos auch mit dieser Funktion 🎉

[@arminbreuer7968]

I find that the larger the sensor, the more the noise resembles actual film grain. When I shoot 10.000 ISO on my A7RV, the noise looks a lot like film grain. And I compared it shooting a few rolls of Portra 400 and 800 on my old EOS33 last year, it‘s not wishful thinking on my part, I SEE it that way.

[@martingreenberg870]

I look forward to your blogs Emily. I won’t be gear shamed. I primarily use M43 LUMIX gear. Small and lightweight bodies and lenses. It does what I need. I’m in Fuji land too. Love the film sims and analog controls. Just bought a S5ii because I came into some money. The M43 and Fuji gear are the ones I typically take with me for a day of street photography. We need to use the right tools for the right jobs. For me, crop sensor bodies and lenses are the right tools. I’m glad full frame shooters are satisfied with their gear. I’m satisfied with my gear. I never tell full frame users their larger and heavier gear is more than they need. Once you purchase gear it is expensive to change manufacturers or formats. We all vote with our wallets. Some of us vote with our hearts. As long as my crop sensor gear does what I want I will not venture into the full frame world very much. Maybe I’m a M43 nerd. Mask On Nurse Marty (Ret)

[@matthieuzglurg6015]

the reason why you get much less noise in a fullf rame camera has nothing to do with ISO invariance. ISO invariance is the ability of the sensor to not change its noisefloor as it increases the ISO. Meaning that if you keep the same amount of light hitting the sensor, no matter the sensitivity, you'll have the same exact amount of noise in the final image. Meaning if you shoot a shot at ISO 100 and another at ISO 51200, and you pull up the ISO 100 shot later, as long as the shutter speed was the same, that the scene didn't change and that the aperture was also the same, you'll have the exact same amount of noise in both images, assuming the sensor is perfectly ISO invariant across the whole ISO range (which it's never really). And that state of fact is true for an ISO invariant sensor no matter its format ! What will differentiate MFT, APS-C and Full Frame is that the noise floor will be lower. It will be lower either by using larger photosites which are able to collect more light (more photons, more signal so less noise), or have the same photosite size, but hide it in resolution, since you have a lot more of them (typically what we see with cameras like the Sony A7RV and A6700 : the sensors in both of those cameras are made from the same process node with a pixel pitch of 3.76µm, and they have the exact same noise response on a pixel level as a result. But the A7RV is 61MP and the A6700 is 26, leading in much more visible noise in the A6700 image when images from both cameras are blown up to the same size). In short : Light gathering is the key ! Your lens transmits a density of light to your sensor (that's a number of photons per unit of surface). If you have more surface, you have more photos, you gather more light and you increase your signal to noise ratio ! That's also assuming all cameras have the same quantum efficiency in the photodiode itself (transofrming a photon into an electron to get an electric signal out of it), which is pretty much the case for the majority of cameras on the market today. But quantum efficiency is the reason why older full frame sensors perform worse than new ones, even if they have the same resolution at the same surface area.

[@BillRicker]

Why do i still covet a FF digital? Because i adore older K-mount glass, but I'm not getting full benefit putting a crop sensor behind them. If the bones converters supported of k mount a well as they do certain other colors of lenses, that would be an alternative

[@markschneider3915]

Old Panasonic cameras sometimes focus better than my new Fuji cameras. Not always but in certain instances. My Canon R6II is a focusing beast, but so is my OM-1, especially in daylight hours.

[@MicroFourNerds]

I've found that this week when shooting with the fujifilm x-a20 😅 contrast based af hits different on APS-C it's so sluggish

[@holzvvrm7718]

@@MicroFourNerds I now have flashbacks to my EOS 600D in live-view mode. You could choose between contrast af or it flipping down the mirror to use the phase af and then back up again. The second version was super annoying, but everything beat the pain that contrast-based af was on that thing. A similar experience is the 20mm 1.7 II I just got. I read so much about the terrible and loud af and I halfway expected it to be like my Canon EF 50 f1.8 mk 1 from the 80ies. That thing was absolute rubbish, always sounding as if the focusing gears were full of sand and only focusing on something after going past it back and forth a few times. On the good cross-sensor central af-point that is. In contrast, yes the 20mm is audible and only goes so fast. Thanks to Panasonic DFD it usually doesn't overshoot and get's it right the first time. It's 30 years younger, so one should expect it to be better, but still...

[@Emerald_City_]

I bought dirt cheap E-M1 orig. recently for fun and collection, and while its early phase detect AF _is_ slow, it has a better hit rate than my G9 - thus less rejects on an event shoot. Is less frustrating if you don’t mind the sluggishness. Plus the colors are delectable…