k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Full frame is for me a nice compromise between (low light) image quality and weight carrying around. M4/3 is indeed lighter (mainly the lenses for equivalent FOV) but I would hate to lose the on average 2 stops of low light noise capability and narrow DOF capability without having to resort to super large aperture lenses (which are also bigger).
How do you define "dead end"?
Yeah, I just found that there was no need to even touch that comment. I clearly have different photo needs/desires than Jorgen as it applies to lowlight and FF sensors.
Nothing against Micro 4/3 at all and u til recently it was the system I recommended most for people that wanted a balance of smaller, lighter, with great IQ. Now I recommend Fuji more often since they’ve added the f/2 primes along with the kit lenses for weight conscious people. Micro 4/3 is still lighter but there are enough improvements in the latest Fuji bodies that I think the slight increase in size is neglible for the average person. The attitude or being required to choose either or is directly against what I believe in though... it sort of explains a lot about why I have questions about the long term future of Olympus. There’s room for a person to utilize multiple systems for different types of case usage. A Micro 4/3 “outdoor kit” would be great as a travel companion where a person may not want to bring their “pro” FF or Medium Format Kit. Happy snaps and family vacation photos likely don’t require 40+ megapixels...
At some point we have to stop looking at advancements in technology as a negative. No they don’t overcome every person’s flaws or shortcomings but they do/should allow people to become more efficient and increase their keeper rates IMO... If they don’t add anything for a person than existing gear will continue to work no doubt but that’s not reason enough to be resistant to advancements.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: for mFT, APS-C, FF, MF ~44x33mm
I enjoy all 4 formats. :clap: