I was an early adopter for Micro Four Thirds, starting with the Panasonic GF1 in 2009. Since then there have been numerous questions, and many misconceptions about µ43 vs Full Frame (and other crop sensor) cameras.

2023 Update: Just wanted to provide a quick update that yes, I still indeed use both Micro Four Thirds and Full Frame cameras! I’m comfortable with recommending either, it really just depends on personal preference and use case.

This post is meant to be the definitive guide to answer all questions about Micro Four Thirds vs Full Frame, if I miss anything at all please let me know in the comments and I will update the post accordingly. Here are some of things we will cover below:

• Depth of Field / Bokeh
• Video
• Image Quality
• Size
• Photographers Who Made the Switch from Full Frame to m43 and why 

Let’s start with the most popular misconception of the Micro Four Thirds system:

Full Frame vs Micro Four Thirds Bokeh / Depth of Field

“Your 45mm F1.8 45mm lens is really a 90mm F3.6 in the Full Frame world.”

Yes and no. In terms of field of view and depth of field, yes, but F1.8 is always F1.8 in terms of bringing in light.

If you’re new to Micro Four Thirds, you’ll be hearing the term “full frame equivalent” or “35mm equivalent” a lot. This is because a full frame sensor is about four times larger in total surface area, and measured diagonally from corner-to-corner of the sensor it’s twice as long as a MFT sensor resulting in a 2x crop factor. For Micro Four Thirds lenses, that would mean:

• Panasonic-Leica 25mm f1.4 would be equivalent to 50mm f1.4 on full frame, f2.8 equivalence in Depth of Field (DoF).
• Panasonic-Leica 42.5mm f1.2 would be equivalent to 85mm f1.2 on full frame, f2.4 equivalence in Depth of Field.
• Olympus 75mm f1.8 would be equivalent to 150mm f1.8 on full frame, f3.6 equivalence in Depth of Field.

Double the focal length, double the aperture for DoF, but it’s important to note that the exposure is always the same (ie. f1.4 is always f1.4 in terms of gathering light).

“So you’re saying if I wanted that creamy bokeh for portraiture, Micro Four Thirds can’t match what a Full Frame camera can do?”

Most people would say that is correct. I say it depends on your definition of “creamy bokeh.”

Many people think that the lower the aperture number = more background blur. And that isn’t quite the case, with help from HowMuchBlur.com, you can see that the Olympus 75mm f1.8 produces much more background blur than Canon’s popular 24mm f1.4 on a full frame camera at when the subject is more than 2 meters from the background:

With background blur, you must consider focal length and distance of the subject from the background. Despite the Olympus having an equivalent DoF of f3.6, it can still produce more background blur than the Canon 24mm f1.4 on a full frame camera.. If you make the comparison on one of Canon’s many APS-C cameras, the difference would be much more drastic. Seasoned photographers get this, and may scoff at this comparison because of the disparity in focal length, but I’m just illustrating that the lower aperture number does not mean necessarily mean more background blur.

You could use Canon’s 85mm f1.2 L and shoot wide open to generate more background blur, but you could also miss focus sometimes. I generally pose my subjects more straight on when shooting this shallow, as even a slight angle could leave an eye out of focus. I’ve done a lot of research and talked to a lot of pros, and renowned headshot photographer Peter Hurley uses ~f3.5 to f4 for headshots, renowned fashion and beauty photographer Lindsay Adler stops down to a minimum of f2.4 to f2.8 for portraiture and the list could go on. Stopping down ensures that you’ll get a shot in focus, and lenses tend to be sharper when stopped down (which we’ll cover later).

Personally, I love shooting wide open when the time is right. Here’s one of my favorites with the Panasonic-Leica 42.5mm f1.2:

But the truth is, there are shots Micro Four Thirds can’t get. You can probably get pretty close with a speedbooster, but with the price of f0.95-f1.4 legacy lenses, I’m not sure it would be worth it.

On my full frame Sony A7III You can get a Mitakon Zhongyi Speedmaster 50mm f0.95 for around $700. Here’s a shot with mine that shows the super shallow depth of field and butter smooth background at f0.95:

Checkout this video from one of my favorite photographers, Zach Arias, talking about the crop sensor debate (the Panasonic GH4 is shooting the video), and how it’s rather pointless to argue about sensors when sensors don’t capture emotion, think about composition, lighting, etc… the photographer does:

Full Frame vs Micro Four Thirds Image Quality

“Micro Four Thirds image quality sucks”

This is a very generic statement that someone unknowledgeable about photography might bring up, let’s address this in a few ways:

– Let’s start with #1 – I shoot with both Micro Four Thirds and Full Frame. Go through my portfolio on Instagram (@jaysoriano), or elsewhere. With very few exceptions (like the one above at f0.95), no one can tell me which shots were with a full frame camera, and which were shot with a cropped sensor like m43. Shoot, even I forget sometimes 😂

– Camera/Lens setup – Like with any other system, there’s a difference between an entry level camera, and top of the line. You can get older m43 bodies for under $200, while some of the best Micro Four Thirds cameras ring in north of $1000. Same with lenses, there are cheap lenses, and there are lenses like the Panasonic-Leica 42.5mm F1.2 for $1600. Some of the best m43 lenses can be found less than $800 though. One of my favorites lenses is the Panasonic Leica 25mm f1.4 (a 50mm lens equivalent focal length).

– It’s not the equipment, it’s you. Let me bring up an analogy, if Tiger Woods went to Walmart and bought the cheapest golf clubs, he’d still kick your butt at golf. There’s a lot more to cameras than sensor size. Full frame does have an advantage in low light, no doubt. But do comparisons on dynamic range on DxoMark, you’ll get pretty close numbers.

– µ43 has better image stabilization, both have been demonstrated a myriad of times on YouTube. So for what you lack in ISO, you could potentially drop your shutter speed another stop to bring in a little more light. You could also set it on burst mode, a mft camera like the Panasonic G9 can shoot 60FPS in RAW.

Full Frame vs Micro Four Thirds for Video

We’ve covered enough in this post for you to probably know which format you want to go with for video. And there’s a myriad of videos that can compare the difference between specific cameras. I’ll just highlight some of my personal thoughts.

The most popular cameras for video is the Panasonic GH series, and the Sony A7s series.

Personally, I’ve upgraded from the Sony A7s to the Sony A7iii (instead of the A7s iii). Mostly because I shoot mostly photos, thus I wanted a little more to play with than 12MP (and the A7iii is $1000+ cheaper).

For µ43, instead of the Panasonic GH5, I opted for the Panasonic G9, known as the more photo-centric cousin of the GH5. At release, there were quite a few differences between the two, but firmware updates have added V-Log and Variable Frame Rate (VFR) video to the G9, two of the best features that were on the GH5 in my opinion.

“Mirrorless cameras don’t have viewfinders.”

Wrong. Panasonic has been incorporating viewfinders since the GX7 and Olympus has been doing it with the OM-D series. And viewfinders have always been available as hot shoe attachments. But let’s talk about how that misconception could have arisen. DSLRs are mirrored base systems that allow for a through-the-lens optical viewfinder. “The MFT system design specification does not provide space for a mirror box and a pentaprism, allowing smaller bodies to be designed, and a shorter flange focal distance and hence smaller lenses to be designed.” There are also many advantages to using an electric viewfinder.

“Micro Four Thirds is a nice small system, but it’s not small enough.”

To wrap up this post, I’ll bring up a point I partially agree with, but I suppose you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

With that being said, there have been remarkable advancements with the m43 system (and other crop sensor cameras as well) with regards to size, and the Panasonic GM1 or GM5 is a camera that exemplifies that, and the perfect fit for your jacket’s pockets. And pair it with a good MFT lens, a pancake lens like the 14mm f2.5 or 20mm f1.7 is a really good combo. Plus with a smaller camera, you can use a smaller tripod.

A lot of nature and wildlife photographers have made the switch, because of a m43 camera + with a telephoto lens, especially some of the high end zooms, are much much smaller than the DSLR camera counterparts.

Back then the comparison was all about full frame vs medium format, and full frame pull through as a compact camera system that can do it all.

I’m not here to argue mirrorless vs DSLR, there’s already thousands of articles on that same topic. I just want to add to the discussion and point out the pros and cons of full frame vs m43 and show you why some photographers made the switch.

Haters Gonna Hate

Back when I started in 2009 with the Panasonic GF1 there was a ton of hate on Micro Four Thirds. I have this theory about why this is, it’s that they’re either:

(1) A photography snob

(2) Or a wannabe photography snob. The biggest difference being experience. A wannabe photography snob may have read a photography book or two, and perhaps a Wikipedia page and they just want to tell everyone what they’ve learned so far.

I’m joking of course, but there’s some truth there. Heck, my first year of photography out of WSU I’m not gonna lie, I thought I was gods gift to earth… 100% I was that annoying wannabe photography snob that I’d hate to hang out with. But looking back I was really mediocre with a few lucky/decent shots here and there.

And even today I’m still my biggest critic. I’ve said this many times before, but photography is an art that takes a day to learn and a lifetime to master. Let’s take a look at a few of my photos from my first year learning photography:

Micro Four Thirds vs APS-C vs Full Frame – The debate that will never die

I’ve referenced this video before but it’s worth mentioning again because I feel Zach Arias squashed the debate in his video above.

I’m a fan of the Sony A7 series, I’m currently have the A7iii. But I’m not blown away vs my m43 cameras. Sure you’ll capture more detail at the pixel level, but how much would it really improve my photography? The way I figure it is, if my biggest problem is my camera choice – that’s a good problem to have! It’s easy to upgrade, it’s harder to become a great photographer.

At the end of the day, which camera you choose is up to you. Whatever format you decide on, just be sure to invest in lenses because there really isn’t a bad camera, only bad photographers. A camera doesn’t understand composition. It doesn’t know how to light a subject. It doesn’t bring expression out of a model, etc.

Shooting mostly portraits, I need very little. I basically started with just a camera (Panasonic GX1) with a hotshoe, the Olympus 45mm f1.8, and a flash or two. Today, you could get all this for under $300 used if you wanted to. I was a hobbyist, and fortunately I make a decent amount of money photography which allows me to upgrade.

If you’re shooting weddings, a full frame camera might be better because of their low light ability. But, as I’ve shown Micro Four Thirds can certainly have extraordinary results for wedding photography. As always, depends on the scenario. For me, I use both camera systems.

Photographers who recently made the switch from Full Frame to Micro Four Thirds 

You ever heard your friends argue about what’s better: Apple iPhone vs Samsung Galaxy, Windows vs Mac, etc.? It’s kinda annoying, especially since most arguing haven’t used both. But that won’t stop them from regurgitating specs and features they read online. I’ve used both iPhone and the top of the line Android phones. Both Windows and Mac. To me, it boils down to personal preference. The same goes for cameras. Personal preference. Most cameras have their unique selling proposition; Olympus with its world class IBIS, Panasonic with 4k, Sony’s full frame mirrorless cameras and of course Canon and Nikon have dominated the industry for decades with a wide range of models and lenses.

Before we jump into the photographers, let’s cover some of the obvious pros of switching to Micro Four Thirds:

• Lenses. Of course Micro Four Thirds will have more native lenses, they’ve been around longer. That might eventually even out. But more importantly, lenses on µ43 will always be smaller because they’re covering a smaller sensor. Just checkout the size comparison between equivalent lenses, the Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 and Canon 70-200 f2.8L.
• Price. Top of the line µ43 cameras are can be found right around $1000, and because lenses are smaller because they cover a smaller sensor, they’re also cheaper.   

The Photographers

[Editor’s note: This post was originally written in 2015, certainly more and more photographers have made the switch as m43 has developed into a mature system]

Thomas Stirr

Up first is Thomas Stirr, who recently said goodbye to his Nikon D800 and hello to the Panasonic GH4. Stirr pointed out, “Shooting video with a full frame camera was problematic for me far more than it was an advantage as I seldom need shallow depth of field and bokeh.” Micro Four Thirds in that sense, could offer the perfect balance for stills and video. Sure you’re going to be about ~2 stops behind as far as ISO noise, but if you’re like Thomas and seldom shoot in low light conditions – that isn’t a problem. If the scene is properly lit, there isn’t a need to bump up your ISO.

Thomas, now that you’ve been using the Panasonic GH4 for a few months now… What, if anything, has surprised you?   

Joshua Milligan

The GH series has been a top option for budding filmmakers, but now there’s another mirrorless option in town dubbed the “Low Light King,” the Sony A7s. But there are drawbacks. And that’s why Milligan chose to ditch his Sony a7s, Sony a99 and all of his other full frame and APS-C DSLR style cameras for a Panasonic GH4.

I personally purchased a GH4 by Panasonic for its internal 4K capabilities. I had no idea it would change the way I film.

And he wrote this post months before V-Log released for the Panasonic GH4, which CameraStoreTV said made the GH4, “a completely new camera.”

As an outdoor filmmaker, Milligan pointed out the obvious for him, which included size, price and internal 4k. For his full breakdown be sure to read his post on Why I Ditched my Full Frame Camera for Outdoor Filmmaking.

Jacques Cornell

Cornell is a photographer who started with medium format in the film days, then switched to everything Canon, from their smaller cameras to the 5D’s and original 1DS. Like many, Cornell started with Micro Four Thirds as a second camera for travel, but “a funny thing happened. I liked using the MFTs so much that I when I got home didn’t want to go back to my bigger cameras. One reason was size and weight.” For more details, be sure to checkout his post on Why I Switched to Micro Four Thirds Cameras.

How about a comparison of Micro Four Thirds vs Medium Format?

I’ve seen a bunch of side-by-side comparisons showing µ43 vs FF, but this is the first post I’ve seen pitting Micro Four Thirds vs Medium Format. I think the EM-1 holds up very well to the Leica S2, there is a difference – but is it a $30000 difference? You tell me.

Note: It’s also worth noting that the results could have been better for µ43 had the Nocticron lens been stopped down to it’s sharpest apertures. 

Last Words

At the end of the day, I like Hunter S. Thompson’s advice: skip the fancy equipment and just shoot. Like I said, I just want to add to the discussion and defend a format that I feel doesn’t get the attention it quite deserves yet. But it will…

—

Update March 4th, 2021: I plan to keep this post updated, but I also wanted to keep this old section from 2014 just to illuminate how far we’ve come since then!:

Before I jump into the list of common misconceptions about Micro Four Thirds cameras, I wanted to understand why people have these misconceptions. I saw an interesting survery on the very popular Digital Photography School website, with regards to “Have you invested into a Mirrorless or Micro Four Thirds camera?” Here were the results:

 

“What’s Mirrorless?” – The leading poll answer with a 27% of votes was “What’s mirrorless?” And let’s keep in mind that this site is very popular among budding photographers. Online analytics company Compete.com measured them at almost 500k unique visitors for July 2014. And working in the industry, it’s common knowledge that could be off by as much as a factor of 10 as Compete does not have direct access to websites analytics, and tracks mostly US traffic.

To me it’s mind boggling that in 2014, people are still unaware of what a mirrorless camera is. And if you don’t know what a mirrorless camera is – then why comment on it’s capabilities? Unwitting comments remind me of the classic photography snob (funny video embedded at the bottom of this post). Perhaps the unawareness of the system lead to the second most popular poll answer:

“No way! They’re still lacking something in my opinion.” 21% of people believe that Mirrorless cameras are still lacking something. Perhaps it’s the snobby photography student, or the mom or pop who bought a DSLR at Walmart and all of a sudden they’re a “professional photographer.” I wish I could followup and ask them what is lacking. But a lot of us have heard it all before – and it’s typically the person who knows little about the technical end of photography.