Micro Four Thirds, APS-C and Full Frame - My Opinion on Sensor Sizes

DXO Photolab has transformed my wildlife photography to the degree that I'm satisfied with M43 gear whereas, before DXO, I would consider many shots simply "reference shots".

Nice video but I don't really agree with the combo chosen for Micro four thirds. Why the olympus 40-150 f2.8 when there is the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8? It's about 400 grams lighter and a few hundred dollars cheaper at least. The weight savings would push the setup to under 1,000 grams.

I think you're slightly unclear here. Given comparable focal lengths relative to the sensor size, the background blur is much less pronounced on MFT. A 42.5mm f/1.7 would have an equivalent in full frame of 85mm 3.4 with regard to depth of field. Look at a lense like the nifty fifty from Sony. 50mm, f1.8, 130 $. There is nothing comparable with regard to background separation on the MFT system. The Olympus 25mm f1.2 is the closest, but it's 8x the price and 3x the weight. So stop comparing apples with bananas! For a "does the same" lens on MFT you are always much more expensive, much heavier, and in most cases it doesn't even exist.

I have gotten amazing pictures with APS-C and 4/3s. Just learn how to use them.

Everyday the same useless discussion. Nobody is stupid by choosing one certain camera system. Photographers will have their reasons.
But if people tell other people how stupid they are because they use the “wrong” system, then it gets annoying. Btw., usually MFT users are blamed. Anyway.
We should consume less videos about gear and more about how-to content. And take more photos.

It's been a year, but let me remind everyone that the paramount question here is where the photos will end up eventually. If less than a couple thousand people will see them, if they are not printed in a book or magazine, or enlarged and framed on the gallery wall for an exhibition, what's the use of all the FF perfectionism? When MFT already surpasses the boundaries of 24×36mm analogue era film by far. Think just what masterpieces have been taken in that format. Also, being less capable but more portable, MFT is a real challenge to learn, to do your best and practice hard to surpass the limitations of the format.

I always carry a camera with me. And it‘s a MFT. Usually with a second lens, in a small sling-bag. We‘ll see if I can do that with a 35mm camera.

"full frame" is an arbitrary size that in itself really means nothing, especially to people who haven't ever shot a roll of film. The idea harkens back to the size of movie film, but when 35mm cameras were introduced they were called Miniature cameras. Thinking was, nothing below 4x5 inches was even considered worth enlarging. So 4x5 inches was the standard "full frame" image size, and I haven't seen a 4x5 sensor yet. But at that time photographers would need a vehicle to transport their gear, and 5x7 and 8x10 were also common. I think as technology has improved the different sizes mean less than they used to, and I know most people think their phone camera is pretty decent- very small. And what sees better, a whale, or an eagle?

I totally agree with you. I prefer FF , it’s more flexible system if you have 45 megapixel body - you can go to crop mode and have 20 megapixel and also you have FF. MFT is too limited. Lightweight combos also available in FF for example if you need lightweight lens in 600 mm range go with 600 mm pf . 300 mm f 4 mft lens is like 600 mm f 8 in FF. Pf lens will give you 2/3 stop advantage in background blur and ISO .Many people don’t want to say that when you multiplying crop factor you should multiply not only focal number but also f number.

MFT lenses are too expensive to make sense, while the cameras are cheap. In many ways, the OM-1 MK II is comparable to the Sony A9III, and here, we do see a price difference. MFT makes sense for wildlife and birding, but not so much for landscape and portraits, although you can do it all with all systems. The difference is in the extreme, everything in the middle doesn't matter.

I recently bought an Olympus Pen F and went on holidays to Japan with 3 very small lenses (among these, the very small 20mm f1.7 pancake). What a joy to gravel so light ! Way lighter than my Nikon d7200 and Sigma 18-35 f1.8. And the photos I took really are very nice imho.
Also, I'm experimenting with vintage lenses on the Pen F like some Helios lenses, or a Super Takumar, and I think these are great combos.
But if I want to make some more qualitative work, of course, the D7200 has a way better sensor, more dynamics and the Sigma 18-35 is a fantastic lens to go with.
Every system has its advantages.

Fabian, you are right. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Some find the photos unacceptable, some find it acceptable. Stunning photos to some people but not stunning to others. As long as you like using your camera and think that your photos are stunning, that is the most important! The worst thing to happen is when you don't use the camera and spend lots of time criticising others because of sensor size!!!

the eyes

the eyes

So, you compare a 200 mm, against a 300 mm equivalent in mft that is cheaper and you conclude that carrying a ton of equipment is justified? 😳

I use m4:3 or Bronica 6x6 (BW landscapes), my friend has an 8x10 large format field camera, FF is not small and neither high IQ, what's the point??? That's just my opinion, it doesn't have to be anyone else's opinion and we can all agree to disagree with out the need for holy wars - have you thought about calling the Vatican to find out the Pope's view on this?;)

Are those numbers true? Does 3200 iso on m4/3 look as god/bad as 12800 iso on a FF?
It’s a smaller sensor and need less light to get the same results!? 🤔

nobody calling you dumb.. its a style preference

As people are moving towards FF and APSC mirrorless and companies are stopping DSLR production , the used marked has a lot of lenses for right prices and it will go down as more people jump the ship . So from a price pov I think DSLR APSC or FF makes more sense if you are not a hybrid shooter . Nikon FF DSLR has APSC mode which gives you 1.5x crop , e.g. D850 in crop mode is a D500 and has more or less same burst rate and buffer . I think smart choice from a $ perspective is to stick with DSLR . Go to gym work out so that you have enuf capacity to carry a 5-8kg setup 😅.

While I appreciate that you try to put a factual view on the topic, I feel the need to correct a wide-spread misconception. Light gathering is not determined by the sensor size, but by the absolute lens size. The same applies for depth of field.

If your needs are for an inferior Camera system then Micro Four Thirds is for you.

Once a cult forms, you can't effectively explain objective fact to the believers. In the US, today, we got maga weirdos, and m43 weirdos are no different 🤡

Nice 'food for thought' .
I'm currently a user of both m43 Olympus om5 and FF nikon d610 cameras, and I have to say that an f1.8 either FF or m43 lens will for our purposes receive the same light, ie require you to use the same ISO, shutter speed and aperture to achieve very similar exposures. For example try using the m43 17mm f1.8 vs an equivalent FF 35mm f1. 8. Light is just collected and measured on a specific unit of surface so in theory it is obvious that a lens with a wider opening receives more light overall. Please look into this with real life examples, and pleeeeease prove me wrong. Then I will feel better on spending so much money on FF. Please make sure that the sensors are of a similar generation.

Great commentary. I use all 3 systems MFT (& FT), APS-C (& APS-H) & FF for a wide spectrum of situations and generally with older gear. What do I prefer? It's a bit like asking what is your favourite child. I can get closer to an honest answer if asked what is your favourite for urban, landscape, portraits, macro, wildlife, general walk around, etc. I could give an answer for each category. But if I was a professional wildlife photographer - like you - I would make the same decisions you did, and for your reasons. But, I am an amateur who loves photography in all of its variant moods and possibilities.

In the comparison the MFT 40-150mm f2.8 alllows a faster shutter speed which in the case of APSC or FF the ISO may have to be raised, resulting in less PQ. I know the Mft DOF is actually equi to the FF f5.6 at 300mm, the background blur is therefore less attractive. If one doesn't mind the higher f number (or even higher iso) and lesser PQ, he can use the Olympus 40-150mm f4-5.6. That has a ff reach of 300mm and weighs only 190g. A good second hand one can be found for around USD100 . For someone who is budget constrained but wanta to get started, there are lots of good alternatives. Smaller formats means less glass and so less heavy and less expensive, unfortunately that means less PQ too

I use the very small m43 lenses. The 14-140 Panasonic is my do it all lens. A couple of oly pro's for the image quality and also the Olympus 300 F4 with 2x TC.
I know there's equivalence and all that but when I look at other people's photos and look at the price and weight of other camera's and their lenses I just can't find a compelling reason to switch.

Now compare carrying them half way around the world, and up a mountain, when in your 50s/60s.

I stop caring about sensor size since 2017.... Been using olympis em1 mk2 since till now.

I shoot a OM-1 mk2. I don't have a problem with the mathematical comparison you're laying out here. Its all true. But, I'm a hiker. I want to do a 10 mile hike and bring my camera. It's just not practical to shoot full frame in this scenario. While you may be sacrificing certain things with micro 4/3, it more than makes up for it with the size and weight. I shoot 20x more photos with my micro 4/3 setup than I did with my full frame. I'll sacrifice a little background blur to not have to lug a giant setup up a mountain.

It seems to me to be a very sincere and very fair approach on your part. Leaving aside this somewhat embarrassing issue of those who buy equipment to tell others that they have the best and are smarter, the M43 and especially OM System are obsessed with positioning their product for wildlife photos and I think that is just the weak point of the system.
Sensors with low resolution and problems managing high ISOs make the M43 an option that has its big problem. Added to the fact that in many cases the price is very high and the weight and volume is similar to that of larger formats. M43 only makes sense in nature when weight and volume is the priority and this is possible only with some lenses that meet the requirement of being bright and compact.

I shoot with a 1/4.0'' sensor, which is 3.6/2.7 mm, and I love it. To be content with your sensor size all depends on your life partner/partners

The absolute size of the aperture, and the field of view are enough to determine the total light hitting the sensor, so in a way it's not correct to say that the bigger sensor gathers more light. In practice it's sort of true because you need to have a lens with that aperture and field of view for each sensor, and it's going to be physically easier the bigger your sensor is. but it really depends on what fov and aperture you're talking about, a FF doesn't get 2x the light if the APS-C lens you bought for cheaper has the same aperture width.

I feel like I'm being nit picky, but it really isn't sensor size that limits the light, it's lens FoV+Aperture (not f-stop). sensor size just determines what FoV you can get from a given lens assuming it works on both sizes. You do need to know what lenses you CAN get if you actually want to compare the sensor sizes

Nice unbiased vid. I'm interested in how they stack up when you stop up on MF3 or APSC comparing to FF. For instance compare FF with 24mm F4 lens with APSC with 16mm 1.4 lens. Think just like you can compensate FF by using 600mm instead of 300mm, you should be able to compensate APSC by using f1.8 instead of f4 or something like that to let more light in comparatively and increase the bokah effect.

50mm f/2 on full frame = 35mm f/1.4 on aps-c = 25mm f/0.95 on m43..

I think the advantages of different formats should be rationally utilized, so I use standard lenses for FF because they are more beneficial in low-light environments and are not too heavy. If I am traveling or hiking, or need different focal lengths at the same time, I will pick up the M4/3.

Not everyobe wants or neees "backgroundd blur often landsxmcape poyographers wabt as muuch as possiblein focus bjt theee are other genrres abd tatstea and needs. So requirg bokeh in a comparison tends to bevto the dumsdvantage of mft.

I have Sony fullframe and Olympus M4/3 and 9 of 20 times I some how always grab the Olympus when I go out.

An interesting side note to this discussion is the weather sealing on the OM-1. It is best in class with an IP53 rating. Very useful as in UK it is constantly raining.

i have both micro4thirds and a Pentax Dslr.... i choose micro over a big heavy dslr! By the way... my Pen E-P7 can beat the pentax fair and quickly!😅

my father was a photographer and I was never very interested in it due to the huge size of the bodies and lenses until I saw a m43 in a store a couple years ago. I will likely never go full frame. the best lens I have is a water resistant 25mm f1.2 that goes with my current oly em-5 mk2(love the metal body)

though I have a cheaper 45mm f1.8 which is a portrait lens and I have no clue how on earth anyone could complain about lacking background blur for what that type of lens is used for.

from the immense amount of research I did over the years...terms like "crop factor" as a way to directly with numbers compare it to other sensor sizes, using "science" so literally in an art form and using things such as that an argument as to why "this" is better than "that" is the most ridiculous thing ever.

has literally no one noticed very obvious things like how many edit their clean digital photos to look like they are film? or add vignette? which are "scientifically bad"(or atleast used to be considered bad a long time ago) cuz of grain and the sides of the lens being visible in the frame of the photo?

its almost as if all these numbers, maximizing perfection or getting "similar results" does not really matter if you know what to do with your tools.

go for a modern ff maybe if you need to take pictures that cover the entire wall of a mall or something. seriously.

The FF 600 mm F4 will blow your budget (14 k€). The 300 mm MFT F4 is available for everyone (2,7 k€) :-)

What speaks for MFT is, when you are making photos or videos in report situations. Then you need a wide angle for overview and a tele for close ups. Or natur, wide for landscape and tele for animals. But you have no time to change the lens. So on my MFT I have a 12-200 (24 to 400 in 35mm) and this lens is on my cam the whole time. This is why you see professional photgraphers carrying three camera bodies with different lenses around, because on Fullframe you will not get a good zoom lens which full fills the needs of a report photographer or filmer.

This discussions going for years. Now ff manufacturers are releasing f/6.3 lenses and even f/7.1 or higher.
So.... Separation isn't as important?

Not many people can afford a 12 thousand dollar lens for wildlife when it is only a hobby.

I am using OM-1 with Olympus 300 pro. It’s a great combo, especially for birding I think. I would love to have the 150-400, but it’s too expensive. One important thing to bear in mind is that OM-1 has a stacked sensor, which is a big advantage. I often combine hiking with birding, and this combination doesn’t weigh me down too much. From a quality perspective I am happy, and with Lightroom it is possible to reduce any noise to get good results. If I were to change, I would look into Nikon and then especially the Z8 with the 180-600 telephoto. This combo would be heavier though.

APS-C + Speedbooster + 50mm F/1.8 lens is equivalent to like F/1.2-F/1.3 56.8mm full frame (canon) and it will perform equivalent if not better a very expensive full frame body like the R5 with the same lens in low light due to F/1.2 being so much brighter than F/1.8 and so much cheaper.
MFT will have it's advantages in nice daylighth situations for wildlife due to more reach. However I find the APS-C sensor size the best all rounder in both daylight and night time with a speedbooster. It's a much cheaper setup. I have a metabones 0.71 booster and with all my lenses (Sigma 150-600 C / Canon 70-300 F/4-5.6 IS 2 Nano USM / Canon EF 50mm F/1.8) they're all sharp at wide open and there's not much chromatic abberation or distortion and autofocus speed. I find no difference what so ever with the speedbooster attached or not. So I prefer APS-C for the best price/performance.
And If I some day get crazy enough for night time photography, I'd probably get a medium format camera rather than a full frame. And if I get crazy enough for more reach, I'd crop the image instead of getting a MFT. So there are little to no advantages over an MFT body in my opinion other than being cheaper and a bit lighter. But I'm super happy with my R7 so I'll probably not get a medium format or full frame body anytime soon and never a MFT body.

This video has a lot of mistakes!

Full frame does not collect more light than APS-C or M43. That is just wrong!
Full Frame can collect more light per pixel but only if we do not talk about FF sensors with very high megapixel counts. The difference in quality comes from the noise that is generated as the pixels in crop sensors have to be much smaller to reach the same Megapixel count.

F2 is also F2 on micro four thirds. A F4 lens on M43 collects as much light for the sensor as a F4 on Full Frame! The crop factor does not apply to light gathering!
The only thing is that M43 has double the depth of field (less Bokeh / Toneh).

Summary: You just have less sensor area for each pixel. A 60Megapixel FUll Frame will have similar pixel density than a 24 Megapixel APS-C and therefore will not necessarily work much better in low light in terms of "noise".

ChatGPT can help us here:

Full Frame sensors typically have dimensions around 36mm x 24mm.
APS-C sensors vary slightly depending on the manufacturer, but a common size is around 22.3mm x 14.9mm.
Micro Four Thirds sensors have dimensions around 17.3mm x 13mm.

Let's calculate:

Camera 1 (Full Frame, 24 Megapixel):
Sensor area = 36mm * 24mm = 864mm²
Pixel per surface area = 24 MP / 864 mm² ≈ 0.0278 MP/mm²

Camera 2 (Full Frame, 45 Megapixel):
Sensor area = 36mm * 24mm = 864mm²
Pixel per surface area = 45 MP / 864 mm² ≈ 0.0521 MP/mm²

Camera 3 (APS-C Nikon, 24 Megapixel):
Sensor area = 22.3mm * 14.9mm ≈ 332.27mm²
Pixel per surface area = 24 MP / 332.27 mm² ≈ 0.0722 MP/mm²

Camera 4 (Micro Four Thirds, 20 Megapixel):
Sensor area = 17.3mm * 13mm ≈ 225.5mm²
Pixel per surface area = 20 MP / 225.5 mm² ≈ 0.0887 MP/mm²

Camera 5 (Full Frame, 60 Megapixel):
Sensor area = 36mm * 24mm = 864mm²
Pixel per surface area = 60 MP / 864 mm² ≈ 0.0694 MP/mm²


For low light it still makes sense to carry full frame but not for the same reasons as described in the video.

The OM-1 s price is wildly wrong, Its about 1868,92 $ I got mine while this video was released at that price brand new.