A lot of text, sorry This is my first thread in this lovely forum. My mind will probably never be answered with a conclusion as most similar threads. Nevertheless mind relevant since many may sit with similar thoughts, which on paper should be simple, but that might not be as easy since we have so many parameters that we think are most important. I've really fallen in love with Olympus MFT, both camera quality, appearance and quality of the optics. As I've probably told many times so I switched system from over 20 years of Canon SLRs to MFT for about 2 years ago. Latest camera was not anything since this was 5D Mark III, ie a broadsheet camera which in theory should park a MFT camera according IQ. I also had the paper very good optics for the Canon system. I read to constantly that one can not compare the picture quality between MFT and FF, but I'm trying to find where the big difference is. I think of pure image quality, not the two EV stops applying depth of field or on the two EV stops applying ISO. I notice nice to be able to get a very good background using the appropriate optics on the MFT, either brighter or longer focal length. Here's the optics that does not count chip size. I see from previous FF days that wafer depth of field when the aperture f1.4-f1.8 seldom was used (yes, I know that in theory, should f1.4 on MFT equivalent f2.8 FF when we talk about depth of field) I notice nice to be able to use low ISO values with my MFT house because the optics are so good already at F1.8 and f2.8 together with the industry's best image stabilization (yes, I know that ISO1600 with MFT equals about ISO6400 with FF when Speaking of noise) But I look at my pictures that I seldom have a need for ISO over 1600. Most of my pictures are photographed at base ISO. I note also that the dynamics where I can lighten the shadows actually better on my MFT RAW files than was the case on my FF RAW files from Canon. This is unprecedented in landscapes where the light varies from the lightest to almost completely dark. This discovery I made these days by shooting here in Greece. Actually quite surprising. The 5D Mark III and 7D I had consistently exposes for the highlights (yes Canon was better before highlights clip than at my house MFT) MFT With my house I put notice for mowing down slightly from 255 to 245, and in this way I do not need to be equally vigilant to expose to the right as the Canon. This is because it seems to me so that I can brighten almost completely dark shadows with my MFT RAW files without significant noise, but my Canon RAW files seem FF noise coming almost immediately compared. This assumption I get support from both DxO, Digital Camera World and Swedish Digital Photography. In fact it is very much to be gained in RAW files to EM-1 and EM-5 MkII. The thoughts of this printed constantly about FF excellence in relation to the MFT, must in my opinion narrowed down to those who want extreme narrow depth of focus, or need to shoot at very high ISO. My mind spins therefore continue on an idea I've been toying with for a while. I want to photograph landscapes with extreme wide angle. This because I like the drama of the sky or ocean that such wide angle provides. Here I am talking about image angles corresponding 12-16mm in 35mm film world. For everything else I shoot, I'm confident enough that I'm well covered and will use my MFT equipment. (As all other photography than LANDSCAPE with extreme wide angle is excluded in this discussion) When I think that 99% of all such landscapes seem photographed at base ISO, with great depth of field, and that I compose pictures without ettercropping and that I print in maximum size A2. Why do I need a full frame camera? I sit on the staircase neat to act something new. The choice is then between the following: Alt 1: Buying the new Zuiko 7-14mm f2.8 PRO and use MFT houses of the type of landscape photography I outlines of the initial text. Alt 2: Selling one of my MFT houses and buy Canon 6D and EF16-35mm f4 L IS (Canon knows the system and the lens has been equally good coverage as Zuiko obejktivet) So a couple of options that have been swirling in mind but being too unsure of the reasons believed in options: Alt 3: Selling one of my MFT houses to buy Nikon D610 and 16-35mm f4 VR Nikon's (will not really get to know another system, but the theoretical extreme dynamics at base ISO is alluring. Despite theoretical higher resolution than Canon achieves this package the same resolution as Canon package at DxO) Alt 4: Selling one of my MFT houses to buy a Sony A7 camera with 16-35mm f4 Sony's (as with Nikon and a new system, and that Sony delivers a "bad" RAW file at 13 bits and the lenses without adapter not has received so much praise that Zuiko and Canon lenses over. The deadlines are theoretical dynamics on Nikon and EVF) Phuu, this was many thoughts. And hope it can be a little discussion around these ideas. Will I have anything to gain by going through a new camera system to the criteria I outlines over? Thank you in advance. Helge from Norway.