@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!" 😂

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

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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

@@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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Landscope 360 was macht der Blutdruck?

Me too

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.

Bargaaaain time lol

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!

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

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

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

​@@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.

If it was really big he would have brought out the jar of Vaseline lol.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@@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.

@@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.

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

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

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

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

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.

@Luke Caldwell this video cover exactly that question in a very convincing way: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/o8WJqcxjtcuqf6c.html

@@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?

@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.

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

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.

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

@@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.

@@youknowwho9247 Nah

@@youknowwho9247 Aha, sure bro

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

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

@@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 ...

@@JokiW Certainly did. ^_^

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

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.... :/

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

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!!

@@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.

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

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.

@@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.

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

@@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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Cos what's the point? That would be prohibitively expensive

Yeah, I love that lens; fairly sharp, very fast focus, comparatively lightweight, awesome video lens - 800 mm to 2160 mm (HD + extended teleconverter) on the long end. I can shoot with it all day long and even had it fall to the ground with a gh5 and both are just fine. The macro-like capabilities are astonishing as long as you manual focus as the in-focus range can be less than an inch for insects and flowers. It's a powerhouse.

@@dfusselman What do you mean HD + televonverter, is that the 2x + 4x digital zoom in the camera menu?

Indeed!

Jordan Drake cool!

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.

The equivalency aspect only really applies to field of view and depth of field. For example, a 2.8 aperture is a 2.8 aperture no matter the sensor size. It doesnt matter if its a cell phone camera or medium format. The light transmitted is the same. When they say there's a 2 stop difference between m43 and full frame, they're talking about the depth of field. A 2.8 lens on m43 will give the equivalent dof of f5.6 on full frame. The way every KZfaq channel tries to explain equivalency is very misleading.

To put it in another perspective. If you print an 8x10 picture and use scissors to cut down to fit in a 5x7 frame. Would the exposure change? Of course not. crop cameras work the same way. Your exposure will be the same no matter your sensor size.

@@justinstein2032 I have both Sony FF and m43 and I find this comment of aperture and light transmission to be accurate, with the caveat of smaller sensor ISO performance partially due to pixel density (eg m43 20mp is roughly equivalent to FF 80mp, in terms of pixel density). Stuff like this tends to get complicated, and sometimes hypothetical in terms of calculation, just shoot at the lowest iso you can while using the accurate exposure preview from the evf/screen and be happy! :)

@@justinstein2032 So if I want more in focus I would be at a two stop disadvantage with a full frame camera?

Justin Stein Doesn’t it apply to image quality as well? So a f/2 image from M43 will have the same quality as an f/5.6 image on FF if the shutter speeds are the same. This assumes glass is of equal quality, which is rarely the case. f/5.6 FF glass is usually low quality, which is what the video is about. Performance should equal M43 f/2 if someone actually makes a high quality f/5.6 FF lens.

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

Both. The 2x crop factor means you need to use 2x lower focal length on MFT to get the same angle of view, which means you must use a 2 stops wider aperture to get the same depth of field. This also means the light intensity will be 2 stops brighter on MFT in this case, BUT (!!) we must also factor in that the FF sensor has 4x the area of MFT meaning the whole sensor will collect 4x the light (2 stops) at the same aperture and shutter speed, which is why FF typically has a 2 stop noise advantage over MFT at the same ISO. So in that way e.g. 25mm F4 ISO100 on MFT is in end result the same as 50mm F8 ISO400 on FF.

@@Elgsdyr Thanks :)

No there is only social distancing in America that's why the infection rate is low

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.

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

You misunderstood how crop factor works. F/8 on full frame yields the same results as f/4 on MFT in terms of both, depth of field and low light capabilities. A MFT sensor is only a quarter of the size of a full frame sensor, so the total light that hits the sensor is the same with both pieces of glass. An image shot with MFT at 25mm, f/4, 1/250th, ISO 200 will have the same field of view, depth of field and noise as an image shot on full frame at 50mm, f/8, 1/250th, ISO 800. The deeper depth of field of MFT is never an advantage, because to get the same results you can always stop a full frame down two stops. Can't do the same vice versa though.

@@youknowwho9247 Sure, but this sounds misleading. The question was whether F4 on M43 was equivalent to F8 on FF. Yes, the FOV is the same, the noise is the same, but according to everything I have read and experienced, the light will be dramatically less. That's because the light equivalent to F4 on M43 is F4 on FF, not F8. I am not too concerned about equivalent DOF as much as equivalent light for my photography, so equating the two based on DOF is meaningless to me. This can be a strength or a weakness depending on your subject. Maybe a lot of shooters prioritize razor-thin DOF, but in many cases I have seen it as an advantage to have the same light and deeper focus, which is why I think the comparison isn't apt. For my monies, F4 is F4 and I will work out the DOF separately if necessary.

@@jaywalker. Yes, when comparing a FF f/8 lens to an MFT f/4 lens it will transmit 1/4 the light per square millimetre onto the sensor. However, that sensor is 4x the size meaning the total light gathered, and therefore all aspects of image quality, assuming the technology behind the sensors is similar, are identical.

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

That's a non issue at small apertures.

@@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.

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!

@@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.

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?

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

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 :)

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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

What you're missing is that at the same ISO setting the FF sensor will have 1/4 the noise, therefore the results are not equivalent.

@@TechnoBabble You're right. Finally got it. 600mm F4 means (compared to 300mm F4 MFT) double the amount of light it lets in. Thus less noise. Thanks!

@@respondtononsense7513 It's actually 4x the the light. ;)

Editing one right now. - Jordan @ DPReview TV

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

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.

@@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

@@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.

No, it's not. Olympus is dead and Panasonic switched to full frame. MFT is done.

Olympus Imaging is being transferred to JIP and Panasonic has two sensor sizes, just like Canon/Nikon/Sony

@@youknowwho9247 , did Olympus stiff you somehow?

@@Simoneister JIP is stripping Olympus imaging and selling the parts. The company is dead. Believing otherwise is naive. Panasonic is ditching MFT, because nobody cares about that mount anymore. It's the smallest, most rapidly shrinking, least profitable segment in the consumer camera market. Canon, Sony and Nikon share the same mount between different sensor formats. Panasonic doesn't. There's no synergy here. MFT is dead.