Has everyone gone mad?

[Panolyman]

You know, you can remove your rating and apply a new one.

But that would confuse the confused even more.

 

[The Electric Squirrel]

The point of this thread is probably long gone, but I'll answer the question in the heading and chime in on my experiences on my grievances shooting both MFT and FF.

First the answer to the great question: I take great pride in being moderately bonkers.

Then to the meat of things: I've been shooting full frame longer than MFT. It's affordable FF that first got me back to doing photography since the film days and my medium format stuff were long gone. January this year after long pondering I pulled the trigger and got me a Panasonic GX80 along with the pancake zoom and a 25/1.7 that was on sale for not much money from a local dealer. I think I paid 478€ for the kit. Less than my RF 35/1.8, that is.

Initially this was an experiment for me. I wanted to try if having a smaller sidekick camera would make me have it with me more often. I didn't know what to expect IQ wise. What I did know was that my usual landscape bag weighed in at 8kg with the tripod, and taking that with me was always a deliberate choice. So something smaller and lighter was what I wanted, and not wanting to pay Fuji prices for lenses (again), MFT made the most sense. Something to fit in my surplus army field jacket pocket in a pinch was what I wanted.

Now some six thousand images later on the Panasonic I've two major grievances with it. One of them is the viewfinder, which has nothing to do with the overall system. The second one is the biggest IQ difference I've found between MFT and FF. And that's overall tonality or tonal depth if you will. The jump in resolution between the 16mpix Panny and my 30mpix Canon isn't that big of a deal, really. But the tonality difference is big, even shooting landscapes with base ISO. That means I have to work really hard sometimes with the Panny images to get the look that I want in post processing. With the Canon, the colours and tonality take much less work usually.

Still, I have printed images taken with the Panny and hung them on my walls. And to be honest, if you don't know the difference, you probably won't notice it. But it's something that frustrates me sometimes.

That being said, the GX80 paired with the 12-60 f/3.5-5.6 weighs about the same as my Canon RF 24-105 f/4 L alone. And having just added the numbers, I've used about the same amount of money on my complete MFT system as I have on that single L-lens. And that includes the GX80 body, the 12-32mm pancake zoom, Lumix 25/1.7, Lumix 20/1.7, M.Zuiko 45/1.8, M.Zuiko 9-18mm and Lumix G 12-60mm.

 

[MichailK]

well you can easily solve the tonality problem by moving down South where the Sun’s rays fall more perpendicular to the landscapes we have around here

 

[The Electric Squirrel]

well you can easily solve the tonality problem by moving down South where the Sun’s rays fall more perpendicular to the landscapes we have around here

Hmm... That could otherwise be a reasonable proposition, but I just finished hauling my vinyl LP's upstairs in our new house, and I'd hate to do that again so soon... A box full of LP's is surprisingly heavy.

And if I were to move abroad, I'd go to UK or Denmark. I'm envious of their fogs. I'm also a bit envious of the lens choices Sony users have (I've been suffering a fit of serious GAS here)...

 

[MichailK]

I'm envious of their fogs.

we have better beaches with so much light you can forget all about FF or fast lenses alltogether!

 

[Suburbian]

Back in 1957 we discussed this issue on the forums; SLR or Rangefinder? In the 70's our topic was Manual or AF? In the 90's digital of film? All I can say for certain is, since about 1930 to 1957 the forums online were really boring and nothing seemed to change...like forever? It's been exciting, having all this change since the 1950's and I'd sure hate to go back to 1932 all over again, unless we had the same prices and could realistically expect to make $30/hr or better?

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Back in 1957 we discussed this issue on the forums; SLR or Rangefinder? In the 70's our topic was Manual or AF? In the 90's digital of film? All I can say for certain is, since about 1930 to 1957 the forums online were really boring and nothing seemed to change...like forever? It's been exciting, having all this change since the 1950's and I'd sure hate to go back to 1932 all over again, unless we had the same prices and could realistically expect to make $30/hr or better?

From 1930 to 1957, it had to be really boring online!

 

[WaltP]

From 1930 to 1957, it had to be really boring online!

It truly was. Online was REALLY dull until at least 1957 - when AL Gore was born.

We haven't ALL gone mad - I haven't, I can't seem to find it on my map. Can I get there from here?

 

[Holoholo55]

It truly was. Online was REALLY dull until at least 1957 - when AL Gore was born.

We haven't ALL gone mad - I haven't, I can't seem to find it on my map. Can I get there from here?

No worries. We're already there!

 

[RichardC]

Dunno about mad, however, reading some content on this website this morning, I'm tempted to start reporting posts for being pessimistic and miserable.

 

[Hypilein]

Dunno about mad, however, reading some content on this website this morning, I'm tempted to start reporting posts for being pessimistic and miserable.

Liking everything is boring.

 

[ERB]

Beware: Wall of text ahead!

Recently there has been an increasing amount of discussion on the demise of micro four thirds and how it is inevitable, mostly because full frame is so much better. These discussions are about as old as the format and go back as far as I can remember being on this forum. However, what’s new is that there seem to be way more current micro four thirds shooters agreeing to this point of view. It seems to me, that the ongoing pressure of review channels and other full frame proponents has led to a change of opinion with many and I am utterly confused why certain sides of the argument for the system are ignored in favour of a single “we must have the very best image quality possible”. I am going to have an in depth look at the cameras/lenses I currently use and how I would replace them in different systems. I’m ignoring the FF systems of Canon/Nikon/Panasonic for the sake of simplicity. In terms of lens options they really offer no advantages over Sony and they are also not significantly cheaper or lighter. Soft factors like UI obviously are important for buying decisions but for the most part the decision for a specific sensor format has a much bigger influence. The only difference is APS-C, as Fuji is the only company that has a dedicated APS-C line up.

Even though equivalency has been discussed to death on this forum, it needs to be mentioned here. The following I hold to be true:

FOV: With the crop factor the FOV changes accordingly. Although we may talk about a 25mm lens in mu43 or a 50mm in FF we mean a 46.8° diagonal FOV. When we buy lenses the first thing we usually decide is the FOV we want. We articulate that in focal length millimetres but the FOV is what we mean. In this case a 300mm in FOV is the same as a 600mm in FF or 400mm in APS-C. A significant difference.

Aperture: The Aperture (f-value) tells us which exposure we are getting. It does not change with formats. If we need our shutter speed to be above a certain value (wildlife, sports) a faster aperture will provide that regardless of format.

Depth of Field (DoF): Depth of field changes with focal length and aperture. In micro four thirds we use shorter focal lengths for the same FoV. This impacts the DoF. A good rule of thumb is using “equivalent apertures”. This only affects DoF, not image quality. In different kinds of photography more or less DoF may be required, so the often thinner DoF of full frame sensors is a double edged sword.

Low light (high ISO) performance: Generally FF sensors are considered to be about 2 stops better while APS-C sensors are 1 stop better than mu43. This is not a strict rule though and the gap has been smaller or bigger depending on the tech available for different formats. Currently the very best FF sensors are slightly ahead of those two stops – slightly meaning (much) less than 1/3 stop. Despite what many people say about the progress of different formats the variance on this point has always been much lower than what people make out and advantages within a single format have been pretty slim in the last 5 years or even more.

Dynamic Range: Dynamic range tells us the variance of the brightest and darkest points in an image. It is measured in stops. The very best FF sensor currently has 14.8 EVs (the A7rVI). Many other FF cameras only have about 14 EVs. The Panasonic GH5 has 13EV and the Em1mkII 12.8. So the difference is about 1-2 stops depending on sensor tech. I have taken all values from DXO mark and they seem to have no newer cameras than the EM1mkII in mu43. Personally I have found that in scenes where the DOF is not enough for a single frame I need to bracket more than 1 stop (each way), but dynamic range seems to be one of the most significant advantages to IQ in larger sensor cameras.

Resolution: Resolution is not directly linked to sensor size, but Larger sensors generally allow for more pixels. While all modern mu43 cameras come with 20mp sensors (the GH5S being the single exception) and most APS-C cameras have around 24mp there is a significant difference within the FF format (all the way from 12-61mp). This is another area where FF significantly betters both mu43 and aps-c. High resolution modes take the edge of this advantage in some scenarios and most display scenarios don’t benefit from extremely high resolutions but if you want more pixels FF is the way to go.

How much better is FF image quality really:
As can be seen from the above, FF image quality is better in three aspects: Low light performance (ISO), Dynamic Range and Resolution. DoF control is a double edged sword. If you are constantly after more shallow DoF full frame definitely has the edge, but good blurred backgrounds come as much from wise background choices and in many subjects more DoF is actually required.

Low light performance can be overcome to a degree by faster lenses. It is likely more economical to buy a faster lens than a complete system swap as often you know exactly the scenarios where low light performance is important for you so a single fast lens may be all that’s needed.

Dynamic range (more often than not 1 stop difference) and Resolution (often double, sometimes the same) are more difficult to assess. Dynamic range can be a problem even on current FF cameras so more is always better. Once again this is a question of analysing if you actually run into problems with this often.

People generally seem to have problems with the concept of “good enough”. Many (most?) people are not printing at all, and when they are they rarely go larger than 40-60cm which is a size that is absolutely fine with a 20mp sensor. Similarly many photos don’t actually have a huge dynamic range, especially in the area of portraits.

The question of AF

AF system speed is not related to sensor size. As you choose a system you also choose the AF system so despite the only indirect effect on IQ the AF system is an important aspect of a buyer’s decision. Currently only Panasonic and Olympus still have cameras without Phase Detection AF pixels (of some variant). Olympus has included PDAF in it’s newest EM1 and EM5 iterations, while Panasonic still sticks with their contrast detect DFD system. AF is notoriously hard to test for multiple reasons. One is that people rarely make a difference between the tracking systems which tell the camera where to focus and the actual AF results at the chosen point. There are also difference in performance between AF-S and AF-C. The biggest advances in recent times have been made in tracking and AF-C. If you use a user chosen AF Point and manually hold it over the subject advances in tracking are worthless to you (looking at you landscape photographers). If you try to photograph moving subjects (sports, kids, animals) good tracking will make your photography easier. If you can keep the AF-spot on your subject yourself you only need good AF-C. Most cameras today have competent to excellent AF-C. Even Panasonics DFD system works fairly reliably. If you just shoot single shots and use AF-S you don’t need to care about your cameras AF system. It will be good enough! (Again looking at you landscape photographers).

It seems different people rank AF competency differently. On here it seems the ranking goes Sony>FF DSLRS>Canon Mirrorless >Nikon Mirrorless>Fuji>Olympus> Panasonic. On Wetpixel (a forum for underwater photographers) people seem to rate Olympus much higher and FF DSLRs still as the ultimate best. As I have no personal experience and testing is difficult it seems to me that only one thing is certain. Panasonic is always at the very bottom of the list. All of the other systems are probably good enough that people don’t constantly complain.

Video

Video is becoming more important or at least it seems so. Good quality (and I don’t mean image quality) videos are still a rarity on youtube, so I don’t quite get the hype and I still think that photos remain the more accessible medium. However, advances in video have been much more important than in photos in the last years so manufacturers market their video skills more and reviewers look at them more in depth.

Video AF:While Panasonics AF-C (without tracking) is competent the requirements for video AF are harder because the need of smooth focus transitions. Also tracking is much more important in Video.

Video IQ: Video IQ eliminates the question of resolution. 8K is not really a thing (yet) and 4k requires less Mp than everything on the market. Video IQ is therefore mostly a question of codecs and video crop factors. This is the reason that Panasonic has been leading in video IQ despite the smaller sensors, although low light IQ is becoming more important here and better AF systems now open up possibilities with larger sensors and smaller DoF.

Diversion: Underwater photography
I am for this analysis excluding my underwater photography gear. A system change in underwater cameras can easily cost multiple thousand euros as equipment drops in value drastically basically the instant it touches water the first time. Changing systems means not only buying a new housing but also completely new ports and possibly more powerful strobes. The cost of FF is multiplied in Underwater Photography because dome port size scales with sensor size. As wide angle lenses have to be stopped down for DoF (even the 8-18mm behind a 7” dome needs at least f8, better f11) any low light advantages for FF are eaten up, leaving only resolution and dynamic range as improvements. The other half of underwater photography is macro. Stopping down to f16 on mu43 for DoF is a thing that exists, diffraction be damned. Dynamic range is rarely a problem as everything is artificially lit leaving only resolution and a slightly higher diffraction cealing as benefits for FF. For the vast majority of people the tradeoffs (diving sites often require international travel, my mu43 kit weighs in at about 10kg total, imagine what FF weighs) are not worth the fuss. As such, mu43 is a very respected system in the UW-Photography world and possibly also the last place where people are actually interested when a new compact camera comes out.

An actual comparison
All of these definite, but often marginal improvements come at a price. I am now going to compare four sets of equipment. I am not taking into account that many (most?) photographers in the market for a FF camera already own a camera. Depending on resale value of the items mentioned the loss of switching systems may well be one or two thousand euros. In the comparison I am going to equal out apertures with ISO performance. So if a lens has one stop larger aperture, but on a system with 1 stop worse ISO their performance in low light is equal. If the aperture is the same, but the sensor is 2 stops better the whole combination is also 2 stops better. I’m ignoring DoF as it’s an artistic decision. If shallow depth of field is important for you, you probably know what you need to do to get it.

I am currently using a GX8 with Panasonic 8-18mm, 35-100 f2.8 and 100-300mkII. I have some other lenses which I use often enough to not bother selling them, but this is my core kit.

I created roughly equivalent systems for Fuji X, Sony Crop and Sony FF. This proved quite difficult, as you will see. I replaced the mu43 body with an Olympus EM5mkIII as the GX8 is no longer sold and the Em5 is the closest equivalent (small, weather sealed, decent VF). All cameras had to have IBIS, which limited the fuji line-up in particular. Obviously the difference might look very different for prime shooters. However, I still believe that the majority of people use zoom lenses (probably most often just the kit zooms). I guess a similar comparison with a three prime kit or the classic double lens kit would be an interesting comparison too.

This is what I came up with:

Mu43: EM5mkIII, PL8-18mm f2.8-4, P35-100 f2.8mkII, P100-300 f4-5.6 mkII
Fuji: XT4, Fuji 10-24mm f4, 55-200mm f3.5-4.8, 100-400mm f4.5-5.6
Sony Crop: A6600, 10-18mm f4, 70-200mm f4 (FF lens), 100-400mm f4.5-5.6
Sony FF: A7Riii, 16-35mm f4, 70-200mm f4, 200-600mm 5.6-6.3

	Mu43	Fuji	Sony Crop	Sony FF
Price	3356€	4920€	5483€	6598€
Weight	1844g	3033g	2963g	4115g

All prices are current prices found at a price comparison website​

So here we have the first myth buster. The mu43 system (all premium lenses except the super tele) is nearly 2000€ cheaper than fuji crop and about half of the Sony FF system in price. If super tele is important you could replace the 100-300 with a 300f4 or 200f2.8 for about 1000€ extra which would still be significantly cheaper than the other systems. It is also about 1kg lighter than the closest APS-C competitor and half the weight of the FF system.

You could save some money by using cheaper bodies but for Fuji there is a limited choice of bodies with IBIS. With Sony what you save on older bodies is made up with the fact that there are very few dedicated high quality crop lenses so you pay for FF lenses.

As I often shoot landscapes and one of my favourite subjects is waterfalls, I consider weather resistance to be a very important factor. All of my lenses for micro four thirds are weather sealed. For Fuji, if I wanted to add weather sealing I would have to upgrade both the wide angle and the medium tele lens, probably adding another 1000€ as well as significant size and weight increases that would certainly go far beyond what I would want to carry on a hike. For Sony Crop no there is no weather sealed wide angle zoom available at all. Sony FF is a complete system. It is weather sealed on all the chosen lenses.

Many people never or rarely use their camera in adverse conditions so it may not be important to everyone.

The mu43 system possibly has the worst AF, Sony the best. As this is hard to quantify you have to make your own decision based on your keeper rate. Personally mine is good enough and I certainly don’t own the best mu43 body available in terms of AF.

The case for Fuji?
So what do you get for your roughly 2k€ when you move to Fuji? Actually, very little. You lose WR. You gain one stop of light at the long end of the wide angle lens, but at the short end (important for Astro) it’s a wash. The medium tele is roughly equal, but you gain some reach. At the super tele end you gain 1 stop, but that can be had cheaper (and better) with a super tele prime in mu43. I couldn’t find any info on Fuji DR but I assume it’s in line with the other sensors so slightly better. You also gain 6mp.

The case for Sony crop?
This is looking very similar to the fuji system. At the wide end you lose WR and you gain some light at the long end of the wide angle lens. Medium Telephoto is equal, and you gain some reach at the long end but lose some at the short end. This would make my approach of having a fairly long super wide and a medium tele but skip the standard zoom more difficult. You would once again gain a stop of light at the super tele end. The Sony sensor offers 4 extra mp compared to mu43.

The case for Sony FF?
The FF sensor offers some more tangible benefits compared to the crop alternatives. You double your mp count and gain more than a stop of dynamic range. The entire system is weather sealed. You also gain one stop of light at the widest and two at the long end of the wide angle lens. You gain one stop of light across the whole range of the medium telephoto. The super telephoto gains two stops at the more important long end. However, you do pay more than 3000€ extra and have to carry a whopping 4kg of gear on a hike with some wildlife opportunities. Chances are you won’t carry that 200-600 unless you’re 100% sure your trip is about wildlife, so your chances at unexpected encounters will drop drastically.



Conclusion
With the current future in mu43 being unsure I looked to Fuji first to provide me with a smaller system. FF is just too large (and as it turns out too expensive). But with the current line-up of lenses and cameras I would gain very very little for a significant price difference. I would also have to carry more weight and lose weather sealing. If camera sensors improve at the current rate the difference between current mu43 and future fuji crop would only be significant in about 10 years if even that. Sticking with current gen mu43 (I can still upgrade to a G9, although I find it too large) and investing in a faster super tele would yield much better value for money. Generally an upgrade to APS-C seems very undesirable while FF at least offers some clear advantages in IQ.

The original question – has everyone gone mad?
If I had made the same comparison 4 or 5 years ago the results would have been roughly the same. Maybe the difference between FF and mu43 sensors in dynamic range would have been exactly the same. That FF sensors are roughly 2 stops better at high ISO is no news. So why is it that suddenly people think that you absolutely need those 2 stops when a few years ago that difference was the sensible cost of having smaller and cheaper gear (and it is cheaper if you look past introduction body prices, which are always inflated to milk early adopters). Nothing has changed except the perception that suddenly mu43 is not good enough anymore.

The phone argument
I have seen plenty of people arguing that phones are getting better and that that is the reason why mu43 is not cutting it anymore. This, in my view is a completely stupid argument. If you think that your phone is good enough that you don’t need an interchangeable lens camera you’re not going to buy FF either. Phone cameras are about convenience and FF cameras are just not convenient at all. People upgrade from their phones because they want better IQ and they don’t get that from better sensors, but from better and more importantly more varied lenses. I am a teacher and use my own pictures as a screen saver on my laptop. Children often comment about wildlife pictures asking how I got so close. Using a super telephoto lens is not something they know from their phones and while have gotten good wide angle now, super telephoto is not something that’s coming to phones anytime soon. Things that are far away are out of reach of phone cameras and that will stay the same until they find a new way to bend the laws of physics. I’m old enough to not say it’s impossible, but it’s not going to be here within the next 10 or even 20 years. Also, don’t you dare doing any pixel peeping on your phone camera pictures, if you already complain about pixel peeing level details on mu43.

TL-DR:

Yes, everyone’s gone mad. Nothing has changed, but somehow mu43 is suddenly not good enough anymore.

Wow, I will have to study this post in detail.

 

[RichardC]

Wow, I will have to study this post in detail.

Don't rush, it was nearly two years ago.

 

[newmikeman]

Seems to me that it's FF that is more likely to disappear, because of size, weight and cost, plus the very competitive situation among FF manufacturers putting pressure on margins.

To my mind and experience M43 is much more likely to survive because of the same factors - smallest, lightest, cheapest.

Remember the old mobile phones? Those old Nokia jobbies that made you walk lop-sided when your phone was in your pocket don't seem to be very popular these days. My time a few years ago with Nikon felt like that and FF lenses can't help being huge even now due to the physics.

I'm very happy with my Lumix & Olympus kit although I'm often tempted to move from the huge G9 to the svelte E-M1 series.

 

[Toddster]

I'm very happy with my Lumix & Olympus kit although I'm often tempted to move from the huge G9 to the svelte E-M1 series.

That is funny, I recently went the opposite way. I had been a Panasonic shooter for many years but when I wanted to upgrade from the G85 to a 20MP sensor I went with a E-M1 II. It was mostly based on the size of the G9 and in the States Panasonic did not sell the G95 body only. I shot with the E-M1 for a year and a half. Let me insert here: it is a wonderful camera, no complaints, fantastic piece of equipment. However, I found myself picking up the G85 (a clearly lesser camera) more often than I should. I like shooting with Panasonic better than I like shooting with Olympus. After shooting with the E-M1 II for a year and a half I sold it and purchased a G9. Happy to be all Panasonic again.

To the original poster’s point, isn’t it fantastic the wealth of choices we have in this system! Something to fit everyone’s taste.

 

[Biro]

The jump in resolution between the 16mpix Panny and my 30mpix Canon isn't that big of a deal, really. But the tonality difference is big, even shooting landscapes with base ISO. That means I have to work really hard sometimes with the Panny images to get the look that I want in post processing. With the Canon, the colours and tonality take much less work usually.

Still, I have printed images taken with the Panny and hung them on my walls. And to be honest, if you don't know the difference, you probably won't notice it. But it's something that frustrates me sometimes.

That being said, the GX80 paired with the 12-60 f/3.5-5.6 weighs about the same as my Canon RF 24-105 f/4 L alone. And having just added the numbers, I've used about the same amount of money on my complete MFT system as I have on that single L-lens. And that includes the GX80 body, the 12-32mm pancake zoom, Lumix 25/1.7, Lumix 20/1.7, M.Zuiko 45/1.8, M.Zuiko 9-18mm and Lumix G 12-60mm.

I think you'll find the tonality and color science have improved on the latest Panasonic cameras. If you could somehow find a way to go to a camera shop with your own memory card and take a few shots with a G9 or GX9 (or even a GH5II or GH6), I think you might be pleased. Also, Olympus has been pretty good all along.

 

[ERB]

...
To the original poster’s point, isn’t it fantastic the wealth of choices we have in this system! Something to fit everyone’s taste.

There are different needs. Pros are compelled by their clients and their competitors to show big sized cameras and lenses, due to the vulgar ruling rule of 'the biggest the better'.
The camera the photog uses is a statement of status no less than anything else, and status is a main factor in trade. This is a fact of life any pro cannot ignore a bear the negative consequences besides the positive. This is the market and this market bears on the m43 users, making us feel amateurish, and unsecure.
As a wise amateur, I might be using FF had I be enough proish to always shoot with a single lens, more or less short size. Otherwise, as a serious advanced amateur I would be unwise using FF.
Then of course there are objective needs in which what is for the amateur a marginal advantage, this advantage is often required by a specific branch, and loved by the pros.
Finnaly there is an old rule about how many shots a body can bear and was designed for. But I don't know if nowadays this is recklessly parallel to format size. I don't know.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[John King]

Beware: Wall of text ahead!

Recently there has been an increasing amount of discussion on the demise of micro four thirds and how it is inevitable, mostly because full frame is so much better. These discussions are about as old as the format and go back as far as I can remember being on this forum. However, what’s new is that there seem to be way more current micro four thirds shooters agreeing to this point of view. It seems to me, that the ongoing pressure of review channels and other full frame proponents has led to a change of opinion with many and I am utterly confused why certain sides of the argument for the system are ignored in favour of a single “we must have the very best image quality possible”. I am going to have an in depth look at the cameras/lenses I currently use and how I would replace them in different systems. I’m ignoring the FF systems of Canon/Nikon/Panasonic for the sake of simplicity. In terms of lens options they really offer no advantages over Sony and they are also not significantly cheaper or lighter. Soft factors like UI obviously are important for buying decisions but for the most part the decision for a specific sensor format has a much bigger influence. The only difference is APS-C, as Fuji is the only company that has a dedicated APS-C line up.

Even though equivalency has been discussed to death on this forum, it needs to be mentioned here. The following I hold to be true:

FOV: With the crop factor the FOV changes accordingly. Although we may talk about a 25mm lens in mu43 or a 50mm in FF we mean a 46.8° diagonal FOV. When we buy lenses the first thing we usually decide is the FOV we want. We articulate that in focal length millimetres but the FOV is what we mean. In this case a 300mm in FOV is the same as a 600mm in FF or 400mm in APS-C. A significant difference.

Aperture: The Aperture (f-value) tells us which exposure we are getting. It does not change with formats. If we need our shutter speed to be above a certain value (wildlife, sports) a faster aperture will provide that regardless of format.

Depth of Field (DoF): Depth of field changes with focal length and aperture. In micro four thirds we use shorter focal lengths for the same FoV. This impacts the DoF. A good rule of thumb is using “equivalent apertures”. This only affects DoF, not image quality. In different kinds of photography more or less DoF may be required, so the often thinner DoF of full frame sensors is a double edged sword.

Low light (high ISO) performance: Generally FF sensors are considered to be about 2 stops better while APS-C sensors are 1 stop better than mu43. This is not a strict rule though and the gap has been smaller or bigger depending on the tech available for different formats. Currently the very best FF sensors are slightly ahead of those two stops – slightly meaning (much) less than 1/3 stop. Despite what many people say about the progress of different formats the variance on this point has always been much lower than what people make out and advantages within a single format have been pretty slim in the last 5 years or even more.

Dynamic Range: Dynamic range tells us the variance of the brightest and darkest points in an image. It is measured in stops. The very best FF sensor currently has 14.8 EVs (the A7rVI). Many other FF cameras only have about 14 EVs. The Panasonic GH5 has 13EV and the Em1mkII 12.8. So the difference is about 1-2 stops depending on sensor tech. I have taken all values from DXO mark and they seem to have no newer cameras than the EM1mkII in mu43. Personally I have found that in scenes where the DOF is not enough for a single frame I need to bracket more than 1 stop (each way), but dynamic range seems to be one of the most significant advantages to IQ in larger sensor cameras.

Resolution: Resolution is not directly linked to sensor size, but Larger sensors generally allow for more pixels. While all modern mu43 cameras come with 20mp sensors (the GH5S being the single exception) and most APS-C cameras have around 24mp there is a significant difference within the FF format (all the way from 12-61mp). This is another area where FF significantly betters both mu43 and aps-c. High resolution modes take the edge of this advantage in some scenarios and most display scenarios don’t benefit from extremely high resolutions but if you want more pixels FF is the way to go.

How much better is FF image quality really:
As can be seen from the above, FF image quality is better in three aspects: Low light performance (ISO), Dynamic Range and Resolution. DoF control is a double edged sword. If you are constantly after more shallow DoF full frame definitely has the edge, but good blurred backgrounds come as much from wise background choices and in many subjects more DoF is actually required.

Low light performance can be overcome to a degree by faster lenses. It is likely more economical to buy a faster lens than a complete system swap as often you know exactly the scenarios where low light performance is important for you so a single fast lens may be all that’s needed.

Dynamic range (more often than not 1 stop difference) and Resolution (often double, sometimes the same) are more difficult to assess. Dynamic range can be a problem even on current FF cameras so more is always better. Once again this is a question of analysing if you actually run into problems with this often.

People generally seem to have problems with the concept of “good enough”. Many (most?) people are not printing at all, and when they are they rarely go larger than 40-60cm which is a size that is absolutely fine with a 20mp sensor. Similarly many photos don’t actually have a huge dynamic range, especially in the area of portraits.

The question of AF

AF system speed is not related to sensor size. As you choose a system you also choose the AF system so despite the only indirect effect on IQ the AF system is an important aspect of a buyer’s decision. Currently only Panasonic and Olympus still have cameras without Phase Detection AF pixels (of some variant). Olympus has included PDAF in it’s newest EM1 and EM5 iterations, while Panasonic still sticks with their contrast detect DFD system. AF is notoriously hard to test for multiple reasons. One is that people rarely make a difference between the tracking systems which tell the camera where to focus and the actual AF results at the chosen point. There are also difference in performance between AF-S and AF-C. The biggest advances in recent times have been made in tracking and AF-C. If you use a user chosen AF Point and manually hold it over the subject advances in tracking are worthless to you (looking at you landscape photographers). If you try to photograph moving subjects (sports, kids, animals) good tracking will make your photography easier. If you can keep the AF-spot on your subject yourself you only need good AF-C. Most cameras today have competent to excellent AF-C. Even Panasonics DFD system works fairly reliably. If you just shoot single shots and use AF-S you don’t need to care about your cameras AF system. It will be good enough! (Again looking at you landscape photographers).

It seems different people rank AF competency differently. On here it seems the ranking goes Sony>FF DSLRS>Canon Mirrorless >Nikon Mirrorless>Fuji>Olympus> Panasonic. On Wetpixel (a forum for underwater photographers) people seem to rate Olympus much higher and FF DSLRs still as the ultimate best. As I have no personal experience and testing is difficult it seems to me that only one thing is certain. Panasonic is always at the very bottom of the list. All of the other systems are probably good enough that people don’t constantly complain.

Video

Video is becoming more important or at least it seems so. Good quality (and I don’t mean image quality) videos are still a rarity on youtube, so I don’t quite get the hype and I still think that photos remain the more accessible medium. However, advances in video have been much more important than in photos in the last years so manufacturers market their video skills more and reviewers look at them more in depth.

Video AF:While Panasonics AF-C (without tracking) is competent the requirements for video AF are harder because the need of smooth focus transitions. Also tracking is much more important in Video.

Video IQ: Video IQ eliminates the question of resolution. 8K is not really a thing (yet) and 4k requires less Mp than everything on the market. Video IQ is therefore mostly a question of codecs and video crop factors. This is the reason that Panasonic has been leading in video IQ despite the smaller sensors, although low light IQ is becoming more important here and better AF systems now open up possibilities with larger sensors and smaller DoF.

Diversion: Underwater photography
I am for this analysis excluding my underwater photography gear. A system change in underwater cameras can easily cost multiple thousand euros as equipment drops in value drastically basically the instant it touches water the first time. Changing systems means not only buying a new housing but also completely new ports and possibly more powerful strobes. The cost of FF is multiplied in Underwater Photography because dome port size scales with sensor size. As wide angle lenses have to be stopped down for DoF (even the 8-18mm behind a 7” dome needs at least f8, better f11) any low light advantages for FF are eaten up, leaving only resolution and dynamic range as improvements. The other half of underwater photography is macro. Stopping down to f16 on mu43 for DoF is a thing that exists, diffraction be damned. Dynamic range is rarely a problem as everything is artificially lit leaving only resolution and a slightly higher diffraction cealing as benefits for FF. For the vast majority of people the tradeoffs (diving sites often require international travel, my mu43 kit weighs in at about 10kg total, imagine what FF weighs) are not worth the fuss. As such, mu43 is a very respected system in the UW-Photography world and possibly also the last place where people are actually interested when a new compact camera comes out.

An actual comparison
All of these definite, but often marginal improvements come at a price. I am now going to compare four sets of equipment. I am not taking into account that many (most?) photographers in the market for a FF camera already own a camera. Depending on resale value of the items mentioned the loss of switching systems may well be one or two thousand euros. In the comparison I am going to equal out apertures with ISO performance. So if a lens has one stop larger aperture, but on a system with 1 stop worse ISO their performance in low light is equal. If the aperture is the same, but the sensor is 2 stops better the whole combination is also 2 stops better. I’m ignoring DoF as it’s an artistic decision. If shallow depth of field is important for you, you probably know what you need to do to get it.

I am currently using a GX8 with Panasonic 8-18mm, 35-100 f2.8 and 100-300mkII. I have some other lenses which I use often enough to not bother selling them, but this is my core kit.

I created roughly equivalent systems for Fuji X, Sony Crop and Sony FF. This proved quite difficult, as you will see. I replaced the mu43 body with an Olympus EM5mkIII as the GX8 is no longer sold and the Em5 is the closest equivalent (small, weather sealed, decent VF). All cameras had to have IBIS, which limited the fuji line-up in particular. Obviously the difference might look very different for prime shooters. However, I still believe that the majority of people use zoom lenses (probably most often just the kit zooms). I guess a similar comparison with a three prime kit or the classic double lens kit would be an interesting comparison too.

This is what I came up with:

Mu43: EM5mkIII, PL8-18mm f2.8-4, P35-100 f2.8mkII, P100-300 f4-5.6 mkII
Fuji: XT4, Fuji 10-24mm f4, 55-200mm f3.5-4.8, 100-400mm f4.5-5.6
Sony Crop: A6600, 10-18mm f4, 70-200mm f4 (FF lens), 100-400mm f4.5-5.6
Sony FF: A7Riii, 16-35mm f4, 70-200mm f4, 200-600mm 5.6-6.3

	Mu43	Fuji	Sony Crop	Sony FF
Price	3356€	4920€	5483€	6598€
Weight	1844g	3033g	2963g	4115g

All prices are current prices found at a price comparison website​

So here we have the first myth buster. The mu43 system (all premium lenses except the super tele) is nearly 2000€ cheaper than fuji crop and about half of the Sony FF system in price. If super tele is important you could replace the 100-300 with a 300f4 or 200f2.8 for about 1000€ extra which would still be significantly cheaper than the other systems. It is also about 1kg lighter than the closest APS-C competitor and half the weight of the FF system.

You could save some money by using cheaper bodies but for Fuji there is a limited choice of bodies with IBIS. With Sony what you save on older bodies is made up with the fact that there are very few dedicated high quality crop lenses so you pay for FF lenses.

As I often shoot landscapes and one of my favourite subjects is waterfalls, I consider weather resistance to be a very important factor. All of my lenses for micro four thirds are weather sealed. For Fuji, if I wanted to add weather sealing I would have to upgrade both the wide angle and the medium tele lens, probably adding another 1000€ as well as significant size and weight increases that would certainly go far beyond what I would want to carry on a hike. For Sony Crop no there is no weather sealed wide angle zoom available at all. Sony FF is a complete system. It is weather sealed on all the chosen lenses.

Many people never or rarely use their camera in adverse conditions so it may not be important to everyone.

The mu43 system possibly has the worst AF, Sony the best. As this is hard to quantify you have to make your own decision based on your keeper rate. Personally mine is good enough and I certainly don’t own the best mu43 body available in terms of AF.

The case for Fuji?
So what do you get for your roughly 2k€ when you move to Fuji? Actually, very little. You lose WR. You gain one stop of light at the long end of the wide angle lens, but at the short end (important for Astro) it’s a wash. The medium tele is roughly equal, but you gain some reach. At the super tele end you gain 1 stop, but that can be had cheaper (and better) with a super tele prime in mu43. I couldn’t find any info on Fuji DR but I assume it’s in line with the other sensors so slightly better. You also gain 6mp.

The case for Sony crop?
This is looking very similar to the fuji system. At the wide end you lose WR and you gain some light at the long end of the wide angle lens. Medium Telephoto is equal, and you gain some reach at the long end but lose some at the short end. This would make my approach of having a fairly long super wide and a medium tele but skip the standard zoom more difficult. You would once again gain a stop of light at the super tele end. The Sony sensor offers 4 extra mp compared to mu43.

The case for Sony FF?
The FF sensor offers some more tangible benefits compared to the crop alternatives. You double your mp count and gain more than a stop of dynamic range. The entire system is weather sealed. You also gain one stop of light at the widest and two at the long end of the wide angle lens. You gain one stop of light across the whole range of the medium telephoto. The super telephoto gains two stops at the more important long end. However, you do pay more than 3000€ extra and have to carry a whopping 4kg of gear on a hike with some wildlife opportunities. Chances are you won’t carry that 200-600 unless you’re 100% sure your trip is about wildlife, so your chances at unexpected encounters will drop drastically.



Conclusion
With the current future in mu43 being unsure I looked to Fuji first to provide me with a smaller system. FF is just too large (and as it turns out too expensive). But with the current line-up of lenses and cameras I would gain very very little for a significant price difference. I would also have to carry more weight and lose weather sealing. If camera sensors improve at the current rate the difference between current mu43 and future fuji crop would only be significant in about 10 years if even that. Sticking with current gen mu43 (I can still upgrade to a G9, although I find it too large) and investing in a faster super tele would yield much better value for money. Generally an upgrade to APS-C seems very undesirable while FF at least offers some clear advantages in IQ.

The original question – has everyone gone mad?
If I had made the same comparison 4 or 5 years ago the results would have been roughly the same. Maybe the difference between FF and mu43 sensors in dynamic range would have been exactly the same. That FF sensors are roughly 2 stops better at high ISO is no news. So why is it that suddenly people think that you absolutely need those 2 stops when a few years ago that difference was the sensible cost of having smaller and cheaper gear (and it is cheaper if you look past introduction body prices, which are always inflated to milk early adopters). Nothing has changed except the perception that suddenly mu43 is not good enough anymore.

The phone argument
I have seen plenty of people arguing that phones are getting better and that that is the reason why mu43 is not cutting it anymore. This, in my view is a completely stupid argument. If you think that your phone is good enough that you don’t need an interchangeable lens camera you’re not going to buy FF either. Phone cameras are about convenience and FF cameras are just not convenient at all. People upgrade from their phones because they want better IQ and they don’t get that from better sensors, but from better and more importantly more varied lenses. I am a teacher and use my own pictures as a screen saver on my laptop. Children often comment about wildlife pictures asking how I got so close. Using a super telephoto lens is not something they know from their phones and while have gotten good wide angle now, super telephoto is not something that’s coming to phones anytime soon. Things that are far away are out of reach of phone cameras and that will stay the same until they find a new way to bend the laws of physics. I’m old enough to not say it’s impossible, but it’s not going to be here within the next 10 or even 20 years. Also, don’t you dare doing any pixel peeping on your phone camera pictures, if you already complain about pixel peeing level details on mu43.

TL-DR:

Yes, everyone’s gone mad. Nothing has changed, but somehow mu43 is suddenly not good enough anymore.

An interesting after note to all this is that I had occasion to visit Photons to Photos a few days ago.

While there, I compared the E-M1 MkII and D3/D700 DR (the D3 and D700 use the same sensor). The E-M1 MkII was slightly superior, about 0.5 stops at base ISO ...

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon D3,Nikon D700,Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

No one ever, EVER, questioned the DR of the D3 or D700 (both superb cameras, BTW) ...

 

[Mike Peters]

The sad reality is that many people will believe anything that they’re told or read.

I was working with an old friend today, a dedicated Nikon guy, D850, Z7 kind of guy. I was helping him wrap his brain around raw processing. He brought a bunch of his files, and there was nothing we could do to them to make them look as good as my G9 and GH6 images.

The dumb lens he had, a 28-300 was terrible. The DR and all of the supposed resolution gave him nothing over my M43 gear. In fact he as astonished at the level of detail and tonal range that I can get out of such a tiny sensor.

He was downright pissed that in every metric his images, just the technical quality alone, fell short.

He’s going to rent a Lumix kit and see for himself.

Perhaps with test targets and whatnot FF might have an advantage, but in real life, hand held, in the heat of the moment, it really doesn’t matter much at all what size your sensor is.

 

[John King]

The sad reality is that many people will believe anything that they’re told or read.

I was working with an old friend today, a dedicated Nikon guy, D850, Z7 kind of guy. I was helping him wrap his brain around raw processing. He brought a bunch of his files, and there was nothing we could do to them to make them look as good as my G9 and GH6 images.

The dumb lens he had, a 28-300 was terrible. The DR and all of the supposed resolution gave him nothing over my M43 gear. In fact he as astonished at the level of detail and tonal range that I can get out of such a tiny sensor.

He was downright pissed that in every metric his images, just the technical quality alone, fell short.

He’s going to rent a Lumix kit and see for himself.

Perhaps with test targets and whatnot FF might have an advantage, but in real life, hand held, in the heat of the moment, it really doesn’t matter much at all what size your sensor is.

That always makes me feel sad, Mike.

There does appear to be a sensor size limit though. I have never seen any 1" or smaller sensor that will produce images as good as FTs / mFTs in all circumstances. It appears that with current technologies, mFTs is as small as we can go.

Totally agree about all the superzooms I have seen, from every manufacturer, excepting the 12-100, but including the Olympus FTs 18-180 and mFTs 12-200. They are just not up to it.