In this video, we’re putting two different sensor sizes to the ultimate test to see if it really makes a difference where it matters most. We’re using two pro-grade cameras – the Canon 5D mark IV and the Olympus OMD EM-1. The Canon has a full frame sensor, whereas the Olympus has a micro 4:3 sensor and 10 million pixels less! We want to find out if this really matters when it comes to a professional job.
Watch how we use both cameras to take documentary shots for an exhibition, then go to the print lab to see if a professional printer could tell which camera has been used for each picture.
Support us:
Check out our Complete Guide to Photography Book here –
Take your photography to the next level in our Online Courses here –
Grab a Freebie:
Get our Free eBook for learners of photography here –
Get 15 Free Lightroom Presets –
I hope you liked this video, if you did please support us by sharing it with your friends and subscribe to our channel for more.
Get weekly tutorials and special offers delivered straight to your inbox, subscribe at
Join our learning community on social media:
Facebook ►
Instagram ►
Thanks for watching and remember – Learn more at The School of Photography.
low light and dynamic range
All megapixels aren’t created equally. More isn’t always better.
A new full frame is better at low light than a new micro four thirds. A micro four thirds is better for travelling (either long hikes or travelling with longer lenses with carry-on at the airport). Also the aspect ratio varies. I prefer the 4:3 shape, it is more pleasing in my opinion (yes you can crop, or set non-native aspect ratio), you see this ratio in several medium format cameras as well.
The third thing is the 'photographic experience'; It can be the best image making device on earth, but if you do not enjoy the process, then it is not the camera for you. If you really enjoy using canon, then canon is the brand for you, however, if you hate using the canon system, then don't use it. It is the experience you have, the interactions between you, the camera and the subject that determine the final result. I believe most modern cameras are suitable for most things (there are exceptions), so explore a little if you can before you buy…maybe even hire a few systems for a few days and test them out. Find the pros and cons in your own case. Maybe full frame is too heavy, maybe you mainly shoot low light events, maybe you focus heavily towards the super shallow medium format DoF look? There might be a cost issue to consider? A modern camera will last you a long time (barring disaster) and most made today are suitable for all but the most demanding user in specific situations. So, know the differences. Don't expect to shoot sports with medium format, don't expect a low light marvel from a micro four thirds, don't expect to carry several full frame long lenses on a long hike. You may end up with a couple of systems? If you have the cash then no worries, if cash is tight you may need to compromise on a system that nearly does everything.
Its interesting that when these type of comparisons come up, it’s always m4/3 with 2.8 zoom vs for DSLR with f2.8 zoom. In reality, a fairer comparison would be mirrorless ff with f4 24-70 vs m4/3 with the f2 14-35. That would make more sense in comparison with size and weight with price. Also in many of these type of comparisons you hardly ever see primes being used.
Great ✌
ff can take picture at closer range , so it produce more colo/r more contrast/ more dynamic/ more light.
the smaller sensor need more range to make same pic , rule of physic, no way better pic
Full frame is more for portraits with maximum blurry and low light events. For landscape, under the sun, with plenty of light, full frame still get an edge, but it's negligible. Also often cameras with smaller sensors can cram more technologies for a smaller price, so if you have a very cheap camera with built-in HDR you will take pictures with better dynamic rance than a very expensive full frame camera that doesn't have that. Full frames will also let you crop more into the picture before it's starts to lose perceptible quality, so it's much easier to frame the subject correctly, but if you don't crop you will never see the difference, in good light, between a very cheap and a very expensive camera.
I take on board the reason you named the video as you did and that in this instance it is all about the print at the end of the day. However, for most photographers, where it matters most is being able to get the shot. In that scenario, it's will all be about lens use and lighting. So with the Olympus having possibly smaller pixels packed closer together then theoretically it should be worse off in low light. Accordingly, it would also require a completely native set of lenses to make the most of its format. Whereas the full frame camera will be able to make good use of the lens line up. So shooting with a good kit bag might offer more choice with the FF. Canon is widely recognised as having the best glass currently and if you were to look at all the other important areas of photographic concern: replication and faithfulness of colour, pin-holing, vignetting, barrel distortion, etc. then the choice of a camera, or more importantly the camera system in use, the choice between the two formats takes on a different complexity.
Enlightening ! Thanks very much.
Why didn't you do two versions of each picture, one full frame, one Micro 4/3rds for a true print comparison?
Next time you do a test, do the same image with different cameras then compare the prints.
You won't see a difference with that type of scene. It is landscape and woodland photography where the full-frame will show an advantage.
Lieber Heiland, was ist mit deinen Armen ? Halt mal ruhig.
Thank you so much for this wonderful posting.
Recently I am using a Panasonic GF6 and I do want an upgrade on the gears after I review the photos I have taken during my last trip. It seems that while most pictures were taken within a very short time (stranger trespassing/ impatient kids), many of them are out of focus. Therefore I come to the internet to seek for an answer what upgrade is best for my case. Should I get a better M4/3 body like GX9 or buying the latest Canon EOS RP(economically friendly FF)? I am just an amateur photographer shooting kids during holidays….
My first digital DSLR was a Canon D60 bought new in 2002 and that was only 6.4mp; I shot plenty of portraits and weddings with that camera; and even some landscapes. I had a number of images blown up to the same sizes as those here, and while I certainly wouldn't say they were as good; they were still pretty decent at that time. I have used FF (rented kit) and currently own an Olympus OMD EM 1 Mk2 which when coupled to Olympus's best lenses gives astounding quality. I used to use Mamiya Rb67's and Canons EOS1V in the days of film: Having a camera that knocks the socks off of these even in image quality and is small and light with excellent auto focus and in body image stabilisation (Yes it really does deliver pin sharp images handheld at 4+ seconds) is an excellent creative tool, and I love it.
I am a novice just getting into photography but I don’t think this is a fair comparison. Those pictures were taken on a clear and sunny day. Where the full frame would excel is in darker or night shots. With comparable lenses, the full frame would easily distinguish itself. Enough to pay twice as much? Up to the individual….
Who cares about any difference in a printout based upon 20 vs. 30MP? Nobody I know does. The difference in fullframe and crop or MFT sensors shows up when you shoot available light in high ISO situations. And "high" does not mean ISO 800 or 1.600. Did you ever try to shoot about ISO 6.400, 12.800 or 25K with an MFT sensor? Compare the result to an FF sensor with same resoluton and you will see a huge difference. If you shoot never about ISO 800 stay MFT. Those cameras are wonderful for this purpose. Like your smartphone might be for 75% of taking pictures.
Micro four thirds is superior sensor to full frame and aps-c. Its the golden middle. A lot of people think that bigger sensor means better performance but actualy is the oposite. Lenses matter, processors and algorithms. Dont belive me? Ask my friend the eagle. Eyes of the eagle are much smaller than ff sensor yet completely outperform it in every way. OWLs have very small eyes compared to FF sensors. Yet can see you from 5 km away in pitch dark night with only the moonlight as light source. So no. Efficiency of the sensor matters, lenses, tracking AF, processor and memory.
Just curious, can old shabby 4×5 camera do better photos then modern super duper 4/3 ?
(It was a joke)
You can’t tell the difference – until you need to crop a picture or shoot moving subjects in low light. IBIS may be a wonderful thing if the photographer is relatively still but crank the ISO up on M4/3 and in comes the noise. Again, take a professional portrait, and where are the f2.8 lenses? Nowhere, because you have to multiply max aperture by crop factor, so even the 45mm f1.8 becomes 90mm f3.6. Don’t get me wrong, I love using m4/3 – and I also used an E500 four-thirds DSLR before mirrorless had been invented. Oly are responsible for many of the things we take for granted on cameras today. But when we now have full frame mirrorless m4/3 is hard to justify. I’d like Olympus to keep innovating, but give us full frame.
In the situation these cameras were compared, ANY camera would have performed well as there was no challenge. In fact any camera made in the last 3 years, including iPhones, would yield nearly identical prints.
Compare them shooting sports in a gym, in a studio portrait session, at night, landscapes, wildlife, etc. You will find that one is better then the other for certain things. Overall though, the FF will win. But if you don't need the FF then it really doesn't matter. Also, the FF will be more forgiving with regard to cropping.
The best reason to buy full frame is so that you don't develop an inferiority complex and have to make videos justifying why you use a camera with a tiny sensor.
Could anyone here test the advantage of big sensors in DSLR over small sensor from a micro four thirds in low light? How does the MFT cathing up? Getting tired of the bulk and weight of my Nikon D7100 and pro lenses for fashion shows and indoor events, I'm planning to streamline the size and weight and go mirrorless. I could go for APS-C Fuji XT10 but the wide selection of lenses available for micro four thirds is quite tempting that I'm eyeing at Olympus EM10 for it's stabilized body so the lens choices are even much cheaper.
6:55 "They are not quite complimentary colors…" Actually they are complimentary colors. If you look at blue and yellow in the color wheel they are opposite to each other with yellow towards the warm side while blue to the cool portion. Placed side by side blue and yellow produced strong contrast.
the sky is virtually absent there. it's just outblown plain white but he brags how cool those photos are…ffs omg
Ill stick to the mft. Full frame lens are like buying a6500s. I refuse to buy a $1000 lens.
Your pricing is way off on both Cameras. 🙂
A test like that you may want to use a tripod to eliminate a variable. I wouldn’t expect much difference in you results between the those cameras in daylight. Also you may want give the exposures for each image.