Is FF really better than m43? and why?

DanielBme wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

Photo Pete wrote:

Photo Pete wrote:

Lights wrote:

OK. I shoot mostly M43 and am very satisfied with it.

But this guy isn't running toward you on a football field. Or flying toward you at 30mph. Someday the tracking focus might be there (maybe soon) but it isn't there yet. My old Canon 6mp APS-C tracks better, and has slightly better dynamic range than my M43 12mp sensor (but not better than the 16mp sensors). Like I say I find my M43 is good enough..and it certainly is light enough (and I carry it with me way more than ever my old DSLR beast), and I can use more manual focus lenses on it...but there's a reason that FF cameras, even full frame mirrorless (Lieca etc.) exist, and cost more. There is no way in the world I can match the resolution in B&W of a Leica Monochrom for example or a big Nikon or Canon. Yes I can limit DOF with a fast lens, yes software can blur some backgrounds, but no M43 isn't as good at the very extremes of exposure, and yes it 'is' most often 'good enough'. And oftentimes it is just as good if we shoot within it's limits which are somewhat more confining.

Do you use an OMD, its actually very fast.

Do you use full frame DSLRs? They are actually much faster!

Nope, they are not, OMD has 9fps burst!

With only the first of those 9 frames in focus. Personally I'd save card space and just take the first shot with it.

Pete, you are showing your inexperience again, sigh!

Judging from his gallery, Pete is anything but "inexperienced".  He's actually an outstanding photographer and, based on the quality of his posted images compared to yours, one that you should listen to.

As a fellow OM-D user, I'm embarrassed by threads like this.   I shoot M43 because of its convenience, size and relative cost effectiveness, not because I'm deluded into believing it can equal the IQ of larger formats of the same sensor generation.

+1

+2