No, I don't. But I put a premium on size. And I don't feel that the improvements in going up to a larger sensor are at all proportional to the increase in mass. I call it the size to performance ratio, which is tough to quantify, but it's always in the back of my mind when shopping for new gear.Sharpness of lenses is only one part of the equation lens + sensor output is where the rubber hits the road. That is why it is possible to outperform the very best mFT lenses with some very cheap FF optionsWhy does this seem logical to you? There are plenty of other metrics to compare lenses by besides total light gathered. For instance, how about using MTF measures or acutance measures from DxO?I don't disagree with many of your pointsWhen I compare a Samsung with a Panasonic we already know we are not comparing the same thing. SO what is your point? Mine is that this: people go for mirrorless mostly because they lose a substantial amount of weight and size. If not: why on Earth would someone have bougt a G1, EPL1, EM5 etc? These things were only better in two things: being small and may be good live view. The EVFs were poor if existent at all (EPL1). Video was not there and it is still not there on the Oly btw. For Panmny, video has become a USP.You were the one comparing. I simply pointed out that you were not comparing the same thing to deliver the same equivalent results as the Samsung 16-50mm f/2.2-2.8 on mFT you will need a 12-37.5mm F/1.5-2.1 lens which I imagine would be significantly larger than the 12-35mm F/2.8
When you do this, it becomes clear just how impressive MFT lenses are when compared to larger sensor systems. In fact, even though MFT lenses have to be sharper due to the fact that they're covering a smaller sensor, you'll find that the resolution per picture height for the micro four thirds system is on par with full frame sensors. The only "deficiency" is that the system and lenses don't gather as much light while resolving all that detail.
Do you have a bad back or other impairment?
And there are many situations where it simply pays to be more discreet than a large DSLR will allow. Cutting down on mass is not simply a back saver for those with physical issues. I believe that smaller gear just does a better job in many circumstances. Certainly not for landscape work, but certain events forbid you from taking large gear. Also, a street shooter would have a much harder time getting the same shots with a huge DSLR compared to a GM1 with 20mm lens. The DSLR would just attract much more attention. Same with family events, etc. If you're the photographer, you're more likely to get spontaneous, unposed shots using a small camera.
And I happen to feel that MFT hits that sweet spot for size and performance. And, as you mentioned, I think Panasonic is entirely unrivaled for video performance in an ILC, and that's one of the bigger draws for me. For video, I pretty much just follow whatever Panasonic's doing, since Canon chooses to invest very little in consumer level video. And Nikon is bordering on hopeless. I'm not sure Nikon is even capable of doing quality video TBH. And neither of them can do contrast AF worth a damn, even in 2014. That's the most shocking thing about CaNikon. Even in 2014, they still can't do contrast AF as well as Panasonic and Sony were doing it in 2006. It's not just in their DSLRS, but even in their compacts.
