Both Full Frame AND Micro Four Thirds (On a Budget)?

 INTRO:

If full-frame cameras weren't so expensive (here's a list of affordable full-frame cameras) wouldn't everyone just buy full-frame cameras? Well, as of now cost is still the problem, but if it were not that's a good question. However, I think each sensor size has both strong areas and weak areas, and some where they just can't compete with each other; so I think people would buy both. But, for some reason in the world of media production, filmmaking and "content creation" this battle between camera formats (sensor sizes) has often involved heated debates. The horrendous insults and peer pressure of this battle has pushed people toward taking "sides" and most have found themselves firmly aligned with one format or the other! To address this, I've been considering using both formats. If you've seen my lens-sensor settings tests of budget cameras, you'll know I've been using Micro Four Thirds. Yet, most of the lenses I use are old, full-frame Nikon F-mount lenses...and so using these on a full-frame sensor won't be a problem (unless I start to think I need autofocus). So now, other than the cost of full-frame cameras, I'm excited about this approach, and I hope it can not only make people argue less (because we'll experience the benefits of both formats) but also help us to be prepared for any shooting situation we encounter (which is the goal after all).

BTW, this post may contain affiliate links, which means we receive a commission (at no cost to you) if you make a purchase through a link.

When deciding which sensor size works the best for you, one of the biggest factors is the LENSES!

WHICH SENSOR SIZE IS BETTER?

In my opinion, if you're just starting out (or are just on a limited budget and/or just want to travel lighter) Micro Four Thirds can make a lot of sense (especially if you want to "always shoot with (at least) 2 cameras" like I do). The prices of the camera bodies and lenses are much cheaper than their full-frame equivalents, and so you can build a 2 or 3 camera system for much less. Yet, there are some things that smaller sensors just cannot do. They can't blur the background as easily (when you need to). Then, in low-light situations, certain Micro Four Thirds sensors (GH4, G7, G85, GX85) really need an f/1.4 lens. Full-frame cameras on the other hand, usually work better in low-light situations and have no trouble blurring the background with most lenses...but there are some downsides. Full-frame camera bodies are getting smaller (see the LUMIX S9) but the lenses are not only bigger, heavier, and less portable, but they've been way more expensive (though there are a few new brands working on solving this). There are lots of things to compare though, so let's do details.

Comparison of Formats

1. WHY MICRO 4/3?

2. WHY FULL-FRAME?

3. A DUAL CAMERA SETUP?

4. LENS DIFFERENCES...

5. A GOOD LEARNING EXPERIENCE?

   
   

WHY MICRO 4/3? THE LENSES ARE SMALLER AND...

Micro 4/3 cameras, such as the Panasonic GX85 or G85, are particularly appealing for beginners and those on a budget. They offer a range of affordable lenses and accessories, making it easier to build a versatile kit without breaking the bank. Additionally, the crop factor of micro 4/3 cameras can be beneficial for sports and wildlife photography, where a longer effective focal length is often required. For example, using a budget 70-300 lens (from the 1990s) on a micro 4/3 camera provides an equivalent focal length of 600mm, which is perfect for capturing distant subjects. That is one of the main reasons I like using Micro 4/3 (because the optics of a 70-300, for example, are a LOT smaller and lighter than an equivalent crop on full-frame). A Micro Four Thirds camera and a 70-300 can provide decent framing of almost any shot, even from a distance! Keep in mind that for TELE shots especially, it's important to have a camera with good IBIS, which many of the popular M43 cameras is do (the GX85, G85, G9, GH5, etc.). Having said all of this, I really do like using a Micro Four Thirds body with a wide angle lens on a TILT/SHIFT adapter (see that post)!

This tiny lens is actually a TELE zoom lens (for Micro Four Thirds). The full-frame equivalent would be a 90-300mm...but there are optical differences between formats. For example, an actual 300mm lens on a micro 4/3 camera would provide a 600mm equivalent, but the optical characteristics differ significantly. The depth of field and telephoto compression are different, which will impact the overall look of the shot.

M43 Positives:

• You can adapt almost any lens (for real)

• Lenses are usually less expensive (except for Leica lenses)

• Lenses are usually smaller and lighter (more portable)

• A telephoto lens is effectively longer (good for sports, wildlife, etc.)

• IBIS is better on Micro Four Thirds (especially on Panasonic)

• TILT/SHIFT Adapters are available (no other format can do this as well)

• Good M43 camera bodies are cheap (G85, GX85, G9, GH5)

M43 Negatives:

• 1. Worse in low light

• 2. Wide Angle shoots look more distant (due to shorter focal length)

• 3. Some older bodies have bad AF (pre-phase-detect Panasonic)

WHY FULL-FRAME? THE LENSES ARE BIGGER AND...

Full-frame cameras aren't really affordable for me (yet) so they're not really a viable option, and full-frame lenses are not only more expensive, but also bigger and heavier most of the time. So, what are the advantages of full-frame? Full-frame sensors do typically deliver superior image quality (especially in low-light) and the ability to blur the background more (i.e. shallow depth of field) is appealing to many people. (I think the blurred background trend has been leveling out, thanks to the video about bokeh addiction and the follow-up historical tutorial) because people are realizing most real, professional movies don't always blur the background. it's really still photographers who still believe it's a good idea. The truth is, you can actually get a blurred background using smaller sensor cameras...and not just with an F/1.4 (or a TELE lens). It also depends on the subject distance, etc.

If you're trying to get your TELE (telephoto) shots, full-frame is not the best option. TELE lenses are much heavier, larger and more expensive on full frame. I learned this first hand when I had this old Nikon 80-200 2.8.

FULL-FRAME IS BETTER (FOR THE WIDE SHOT)

Are there any unique strengths of full-frame sensors then? I think there are, but it's in something not many people are talking about: less-distortive WIDE shots. The reason is, full-frame cameras don't require as short of a focal length to capture a wide angle image. Therefore, a wide angle can be closer to that magical, non-distortive focal length of 42.5mm (where there's the least distortion from optics). If you go wider than 42.5mm, you'll introduce wide-angle distortion characteristics (and there are a variety of them) which range from being almost non-noticeable to looking like a full-on fisheye lens. The benefit of full-frame is that you can use a moderate wide angle lens (such as a 35) and capture enough of the scene...and it still look pretty realistic (and accurate). If you're creating a WIDE shots on a Super 35 (1.5x crop) sensor however, it's not going to look as real. (Super 35 is perfect for TIGHT or or medium shots, but not so much for the WIDE shots.) The worst format for WIDE shots would be Micro Four Thirds (2x sensor crop) then, because you will need the shortest focal length to project the image onto a smaller (2x crop) sensor.

Full-Frame Positives:

• Superior image quality (especially in low-light conditions)

• It's easier to blur the background (if you need to)

• Less distortive WIDE shots (provides a more natural perspective)

Full-Frame Negatives:

• Camera bodies are more expensive (they are going down though)

• Most lenses are bigger and heavier (than M43)

• Lenses are often more expensive (than M43)

• Telephoto lenses are REALLY huge (and SUPER expensive)

  
  
  
  

AN AFFORDABLE FULL-FRAME CAMERA (<$1,000)?

Here's a quick list (if I missed any options let me know in the comments) of the best mirrorless (not going with a DSLR, for a number of reasons) full-frame cameras being sold for under $1,000 US, and it's clear there isn't much available for around $600, which is where I want to be. These are average Ebay prices (taken from both auction and buy it now listings) and you can find better deals at times, but it would be the exception. The links are Ebay affiliate links (see above notes for disclaimer).

*I don't always mind having a crop in video mode, because I'm used to the 2x crop of Micro Four Thirds sensors!

Product	Price (Used)	Notes (Good)	Notes (Bad)
Canon RP	~ $600	?	No IBIS, limited video specs (only 24p in 4K) and bad AF in 4K video mode.
Nikon Z5	~ $634	IBIS, 2 SD card slots (Z6 v1 has NONE!)	1.7x crop in 4K video mode (I don't mind*)
Nikon Z6	~ $789	IBIS, No crop in 4K video mode	No SD card slots (only expensive CF Express, etc.)
Panasonic S1	~ $875	IBIS, combo tilt/flip-out screen	Bad AF, no real-time LUTs
Panasonic S5	~ $860	IBIS	Bad AF, no real-time LUTs, 30-minute video recording limit
Sony A7rii	~ $757	IBIS (first generation)	4K video is only good in 1.5x crop sensor mode (I don't mind*)

MY SOLUTION: A DUAL-CAMERA SETUP!

As I delve deeper into the advantages of both formats, I recommend that filmmakers consider a dual-camera setup. For instance, pairing a micro 4/3 camera with a full-frame camera can provide the best of both worlds. One camera can be mounted on top of a rig, and the other on the bottom. This configuration gives you greater flexibility as it prepares you for a lot more shooting scenarios (and it also makes people think you're weird, but we need to stop caring about that anyway, right?)

One advantage of smaller, lighter cameras, is you can mount multiple cameras ON ONE CAGE! Also, keep in mind that it really helps if the cameras have good IBIS (especially for the top camera/cameras).

Two Cameras On One Cage:

• Helps you get two shots (WIDE & TIGHT) using just one tripod!

• I usually put the camera with the WIDE shot on the bottom, and the TIGHT shot on the top

  
  

 SUMMARY:

Which ever way you go (either all full-frame, all M43...or some of both) I'm thinking it might be good is to embrace the learning experience that comes with using both formats. By experimenting with micro 4/3 and full-frame cameras, we can actual experience with the strengths and weaknesses of each format. Hey, maybe by stepping outside of our comfort zones and exploring different sensor sizes, we can learn why people are so loyal to the other? Each format really does offer unique advantages and when used together, they can really enhance your content creation capabilities.

The following ads help fund THIS BLOG (Click one to send me money for 100% free )

I know, sometimes these ads look the same...

...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3 of them eh?