Not a flame war. A legitimate lens comparison

golfhov wrote:

If everyone knows this why does every conversation involving a potential buyer dissolve into a flame war of you can get the same lenses on MFT that you can get on FF for a fraction of the price and size. It is part true. Part false

If dissolves into a flame war, because a poster tries to tell users, that they don't know about sensor, equivalence, amount of light falling on the sensor, etc. I am quite sure that most mFTs users are fully aware of the advantages and disadvantages of different sensor sizes and made an informed choice based on what is important to them. That is why I originally categorized this as a troll post. Trolls tell us what we already know in an attempt to convince us that we are uninformed or made a poor choice.

However, you do give up the ability to go really small with FF or APS sensors, if that is what you want.

Yes with FF. ApSC is actually very close depending on the matchup.

And only about 2/3 stop better, but still larger.

I can also go not small with faster lenses with the E-M1 or somewhat small if I put these lenses on my E-M10.

Have you seen an em1 vs an a7ii. They are very close in size and weight. The "perspective" equivalent lenses are also largely similar in size. SOny offers no small aperture lenses for their ff so MFT runs away with size and price when you use the "slower" lenses. Yes they are not technically slower but we have established that difference

The slower lenses don't exist in FF or APS, but they give the mFTs user the option of a lenses that go up to 300mm (600mm FF field of view), that are much lighter than any available for FF or APS, which will allow use in good light with an ISO of 200 and produce excellent images under those conditions. That is my point, you have the option of going small while still getting good performance with mFTs, where there is no equivalent option with FF or APS. It is irrelevant whether a larger lens would produce better performance or an equivalent would produce equivalent performance, if the image produced by the small, slow lens is acceptable and the lens is actually used due to its small size.

I personally don't really care about weight for my wildlife photography, but I do care about pixels on the target, shutter speed and greater depth of field. That is why I use FTs cameras and the E-M10 just gives me a way to go really small when I want.

Glad you like your cameras. Do not change a thing if you are happy with what you have. I just want to be sure that if I am talking to someone about cameras I fully understand the issues I am talking about.

Not only happy, would never consider FF or APS as my primary camera, for me their disadvantages outweigh their advantages.  If I regularly used a camera in low illumination and with wide angle lenses, then I would definitely choose a FF (APS is too much of a compromise, and sensor performance is not enough better for me to consider it).  I might get a Sony FF at some point, if they get their IBIS the equivalent of Olympus.  It would be nice for landscape (I don't do a lot of this) and low illumination without flash indoors (again not my primary interest).  It would be nice as a second camera.

drj3