I realised after I starting watching a video from RICH Photography about M43 being a better format in video than full frame, that my kit is a mixed full frame/M43 one, but the roles are reversed to the usual expectations.
Why do I have full frame in my otherwise M43 kit and why is it the “backup” format?
Basically, to put into a single sentence, M43 does everything I need and more, but full frame has a couple of specific use-cases where it adds something M43 is less good at.
High ISO natural light video, because shutter speeds are locked in, leaving aperture and ISO only for adjustment.
Super low light, with shallow depth of field assumed, action shooting.
Firstly some history.
I bought full frame for video when there was a thin choice in M43 for the same price to fix a few genuine needs. I wanted longer than half hour recording, some more codec choices with higher bit rates (all-i) and some small benefits like shutter angle and wave forms. The G9 Mk1’s had been amazing with their 10 bit/422, but were limited in some of the ways mentioned above without an upgrade key, an off-board recorder or a new camera.
I had about $2k au to spend (a bit of a stretch as I had nothing really, but 2k seemed possible or at least do-able) and the M43 options were either dearer than that or old models. The GH5II was the gut choice at the time for only $1600au offering All-i recording and V-Log-light. The new GH6 was the heart choice, but out of my range and it needed expensive cards and the BMPCC4k was a whole other thing and quite long in the tooth, so I went with the S5 and kit lens, which was the head choice and I must admit to a little full frame lust.
It simply offered all I needed with some added benefits. Soon afterwards a flood of cheap L-mount cine glass reassured me I had made a good move.
This led to a S5II (a better buy at the time than a second S5), some more lenses and suddenly I have a second eco-system.
The lure of better low light performance in video was actually an illusion as bought, because I needed lens equivalency to make it real. More money spent on primes and that nagging thought I had worked at crossed purposes with myself.
I am faced with the reality that if I had waited, A pair of G9II’s or a G9II and GH7, the twin f1.7 zooms and some Sirui anamorphic lenses would have been plenty and actually cheaper over all seeing as I bought a G9II anyway. The raw specs of the G9II actually exceed the S5IIx, the GH7’s are even better.
The only three benefits I get from full frame are;
Better low light for video, but probably more than I need if I use fast primes on my M43 cams. A M43 lens at f1.7 is basically f2.8 on a full frame, which is about perfect. If this equivalence is achieved, the full frame (S5/S5II) with dual ISO capability can really push things in video, an area I am not as confident processing in.
Wider than f2.8 on a full frame makes me twitchy, both creatively and practically. The real difference then is not huge and the extra two stops of depth in M43 mean I can effectively use the full aperture range, something I would not do with my f1.8 full frame primes (in video). In hind sight (which is always a bitch), a single 24-70 Sigma or Leica zoom would have actually covered my full frame video needs.
A little more retrievability of bad files in poor or mixed lighting, but this also seems to be generational as the new G9II and even the EM1x’s also show some of this capability. The easy answer here is avoid bad files, but realistically they do happen and on sparingly few occasions so far, a full frame has helped make them work.
The ability to render really shallow depth of field with wider lenses, which is not a thing for me really and becomes effectively irrelevant with longer lenses that render plenty shallow for my needs. I often wonder when this one comes up, “how shallow is too shallow to be practical”? I shot full frame and film for years and never used wide open primes for important work.
Ok, reasons for using M43 in preference.
It more than does the job image quality wise.
It fits in a bag.
I cannot tell you how many times I have wanted to throw a full frame in my bag “just in case”, but the sheer size of the lenses has prevented it. The S5II and 85mm are bigger than the near identical G9II and a 40-150 f4. A Domke F2 can take a two camera, five lens M43 kit covering 16-300 (ff equiv), all ready to go.
I can take what I think I will need, then what I may need if I am wrong. Two catch-all zooms, three fast primes and I am safe in any situation. Often the heaviest thing in my bag is a flash, which I use less and less these days.
I do not trust the full frame format DOF in professional situations.
Odd?
Read on.
The added depth of field and the rendering in M43 is safe to use, even wide open, so basically any aperture is useable. The unique look of the 17mm f1.8 for example is safe to use for fluid small groups socially. Focussing accurately, then giving me f3.4 full frame depth at f1.8 and with the Bokeh transitioning slowly and coherently, I rarely miss.
My habit is to shoot wide open with M43, which ever lens I am using, but match the lens to job. Primes with f1.8 are ideal for low light and hero subjects, f2.8 zooms for most else, f4 on my 300mm or in good light is a perfect balance for accuracy and separation.
At f1.8 and ISO 800, I can fire a basic flash (Godox 860 or 685) into a high ceiling with a bounce card and still light a group easily at 1/8th-1/16th power all night. With modern software, near misses are hits, so I get the benefit of f1.8 speed, no catches. I have even used my 75mm f1.8 wide open for rows of three in large groups for perfect background rendering and three sharp rows of faces.
The smaller sensor is easier to design stuff for, which is one reason they chose it in the first place.
Lenses are usually sharp corner to corner even wide open and often faster than their full frame equivalents, have better close focus like for like (9mm f1.7 has 3cm focus).
Thanks to the smaller real estate, camera stabilisers more efficient, the depth of field thing and sensor size mean, all else being equal, that video AF is more reliable (G9II vs S5II). Features like focus stacking, hand held high resolution etc are ahead (maybe format, maybe the innovative companies involved addressing the need for more in M43), overall things are smaller (12-45 f4, 8-18, 45 f1.8), or sometimes as big but they push the envelope of possibility (10-25 f1.7) and the sensor seems to be physically cleaner (never needed to clean one).
Taken in very gloomy light on the dark side of my old mate, the local swimming complex, hand held at f2.8 with the 40-150 at ISO 6400 and 1/500th. Enough?
Looks like I ditched the original of above after processing it in ON1 No Noise, but here is the file after, lens fog and gloomy light complete.
It is better value.
I can get stuff that I cannot afford in full frame lenses like a (300) 600mm f4 and owning that lens beats the possible quality advantage in full frame (in extreme cases) for ten times the price and three times the size. Show me a 16x20 print from M43 and full frame and I doubt I could tell the difference, then find me someone who still prints that size anyway?
Same pool, same day at f4 300mm (600). Poster print quality image from a less than ideal situation.
There are also outlier cases such as the “to big” EM1x which is a perfect fit for my hand and I feel nearly the perfect stills camera, but not well loved in M43 land and available on the second hand market, hardly used, for about $1k au. My three EM1x’s cost a total butchers bill of less than $4500 au. A lot of camera(s) for relatively little. The second hand market generally seems very generous, likely the full frame jitters afflicting many.
So, when walking out the door to any number of situations, yes I do like my M43 options more, the full frames are a little like medium format was for me in the film era. Worth the extra effort occasionally, but often not and far more limiting over all.