Both Full Frame AND Micro Four Thirds?

 OVERVIEW:

First of all, I think each sensor size has strong areas and weak areas...and some areas where they just can't compete. Yet, 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 have pressured people to take "sides" (and most have found themselves firmly aligned with one format or the other). To remedy this, I'm considering using both formats. If you've seen my lens-sensor settings tests of budget CAMERAS, you'll know I've been using M43. However, the lenses I use are usually old, full-frame Nikon F-mount lenses...so using those on full-frame won't be an issue (unless I need autofocus). Other than the cost, I'm kind of excited about this approach, as I think it can not only make people argue less (because we can experience the benefits of both formats) but it will also help us be better prepared to handle any shooting situation we may face.

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

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 makes a lot of sense...especially if you want to "always shoot with (at least) 2 cameras" like I prefer to. The price of the cameras and lenses is much cheaper than full-frame, so you can build a budget 2 or 3 camera kit for MUCH less. Yet, there are some things smaller sensors just cannot do. They can't blur the background as easily (when you really need to) and in low-light, Micro Four Thirds sensors NEED a 1.4 lens. The good thing is micro 4/3 cameras are often more compact and lightweight, making them ideal for on-the-go shooting. They also provide a crop factor that can be advantageous for telephoto work. Conversely, full-frame cameras excel in low-light situations and offer a wider field of view, which can be crucial for certain types of storytelling.

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)!

NOTE: Filmmakers should be aware of the optical differences between formats. While a 300mm lens on a micro 4/3 camera provides a 600mm equivalent, the optical characteristics differ significantly. The depth of field and compression effects can vary, impacting the overall look of the footage. Understanding these nuances is crucial for achieving the desired aesthetic in your projects.

M43 Positives:

• You can adapt almost any lens, ever (for real)

• Lenses are usually less expensive (except for Leica)

• 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.

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.

NOTE: I REALLY like using a 50mm prime on a Super 35 (1.5x crop) sensor, as it is probably the #1 shot that most of us recognize from "REAL" Hollywood films. I also like it because good vintage 50mm lenses are easy to find on the used market, and are a great low light tool.

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)

  
  

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

  
  

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.

 CONCLUSION:

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.

This blog post was taken from THIS PODCAST (so check it out for more info).