BIG vs SMALL sensors in the real world...

The first 1000 people to use the link will get a free trial of Skillshare Premium Membership: skl.sh/jamespopsys04211 Lawn mower was worth the wait - struggling with straight lines though...

Me every time James apologizes for not being outdoors: “Wow, my day ruined, I only watch for the adventurous backgrounds. Nothing to do with the charming, beardy man in front of the camera giving me good advice on photography. I can’t believe he would do this again.”

A rational and reasoned comparison on full frame vs crop sensor cameras on YouTube.. there is hope for this world after all!!

Being 60 years old, the weight matters a lot. Being that the MFT system costs half as much as the FF system, my bank account matters a LOT.

As a 62 year old amateur photographer with a bad rotator cuff I love the less weight advantage of my G9. Hardly ever use a tripod. I do miss the low light advantage of a full frame since I do some sports photography at night but with this hobby I'm very happy with my G9.

Size Matters but more important weight matters too

THANK YOU for bringing up the fact that smaller sensors have a depth of field advantage when you want everything in focus. No one ever brings this up and I feel like it’s a HUGE benefit of smaller sensors. In fact most people bring up how full frame cameras have a shallow depth of field as a good thing because that means more bokeh. I certainly am usually trying to get more of the scene in focus, not less, and I think most photographers are the same. Too me, arguing about which sensor size is best is like arguing which focal length is best. 24mm isn’t inherently better than 85mm or vice versa. It entirely depends on what kind of photos you’re trying to take, and like everything in photography it’s a direct trade off between one capability and another. Great video!

Most people binge Netflix, but I can’t be the only one who binges James Popsys. Thank you for all the vids, am learning a lot!

I really wish people would stop living in the myth that a larger sensor always gives you better results, because it doesn't. The main benefits of a larger sensor are lower noise at higher ISO's and more dynamic range. You can of course also get a higher resolution, but that will only be of benefit if you do large prints or if you tend to crop a lot. Aside from these things it's the lens(es) that matter the most for image quality.

I'm not particularly a landscape photographer, but if I do landscapes I practically never do it at night and only rarely at dusk or dawn. I usually do my landscapes at daylight, preferably when there is nice weather. I hate cold and rain. Even if it is cloudy or foggy or even a bit drizzly, I never have the need to go over 400 ISO with my MFT (I use Olympus) at an aperture which allows for deep depth of field (in landscape I usually want that) while maintaining a short enough shutter speed to not blur the picture. In fact, most of my landscapes are shot with base ISO. I see a use for full frame camera when you are into astro-photography, specializing in low-light photography or in taking pictures of dark objects, or if you tend to crop from your pictures extensively. Since I do nothing of this, a full frame camera wouldn't benefit me.

There is then another can of worms opened up when you consider equivalence. If both lenses are f2.8 lenses then the M4/3s is wide open and lenses usually perform worst at their extremes, whilst the full frame lens has been closed down by 2 stops which will likely produce sharper results. That then also goes someway to explaining the weight differences, if they had f5.6 zooms for full frame they would be around the same weight as f2.8 zooms for M4/3 Its all a giant headache when you start thinking about it all :D

Most computer monitors and phones aren't even 4K in 2022. So, since 4K = 8mp, I think any camera with 16 - 20mp or more is enough for 99% of today's applications.

You succeeded! A really clear and easy to understand comparison between the two formats.

This the the most comprehensive explanation of crop factor equivalence I've heard yet. Full frame isn't inherently cleaner, it just has more range. But sacrificing depth of field isn't always the best option, I find that for macro work especially, alot of times mft is better because I can gather the same amount of light, but double the depth of field.

It's worth mentioning also at how ridiculously good some anti-noise software is nowadays.

Thanks for this clear summary, James. I'd like to add that MFT cameras have much better IBIS, allowing for longer handheld images at night. Olympus's Hi-Res mode (maybe Panasonic's as well?) also increases the dynamic range. These partially compensate for MFTs low light ISO weakness, however, not so much when there are moving objects and you don't want a blur effect. For me, the price and size/weight of MFT cameras make them my generally preferred choice, but I could see experimenting with a larger sensor sometime in the future.

Omg, thank you so much for a reasonable and (as far as I can tell) accurate discussion of equivalence! :D

You have been perfectly clear, and this is the most sensible comparison between the two sensors I have encountered. It provides a compelling argument for the continued utility of M43 cameras: the lenses. I love my collection of lenses, mostly Panasonic/Leica, for their size/weight and overall optical qualities. I don’t see myself trying to replicate them for a larger sensor camera (even if I had the spare cash).

Having made the jump to full frame (s5) - this is really interesting to me. Like the technical background - and the practical implications - thanks James 👍

This was immensely helpful to me. I've been wondering about the difference for years watching you now and just never looked into it in detail. Thanks for putting so much detail into this.