Thus, my point remains: The OP did not specify "only when you need greater DoF." And it's not actually an advantage in those situations, because the larger sensor user can just crank up the ISO with less of a penalty.
OP stated that
FF has advantage if "can make use of t(h)in DOF with wide open FF".
In which case, he or she is overlooking the advantage of faster lenses, higher DR with selected bodies, and the outlier of the a9s ii.
It does mean that if you only occasionally shoot in low light, and you have fast lenses, and you're not doing it for a living, you should be fine. If you're doing it all the time? You might need to do some tests to compare which works better for you.
I agree, and no-one has argued that µ4/3 overall would be better in low light than larger sensors.
...and yet, the OP is trying to make that case, basically by saying "if I don't shoot in the situations where larger sensors win, then M43 has the advantage!" while (again) ignoring the faster lens options, better DR, and situations where there is no need for greater DoF.
It's sort of like saying "fighting with one hand behind my back is an advantage, if my opponent doesn't have one arm!"
You are blowing off the advantages of faster lenses
There are no advantages in the presented scenario.
You mean, the scenario that almost never applies? Fascinating.
This is what we are talking about.
Larger sensors have larger envelope. This means that:
- In good light larger sensors are better.
- in low light larger sensors can be used to produce less noise and more DR by sacrificing DoF.
- In other situations (low light, more DoF is needed), there is no benefit (except higher MP count).
Points 1 and 2 are very obvious. But the point 3 is IMHO interesting. It's very simple.
If it's simple, then why do you keep dancing around the fact that there are almost no situations that meet the OP's restrictions?
In most low-light situations, DoF and IS takes a back seat to stopping motion, noise performance, dynamic range etc.
So as I said, M43 has its usual advantages -- light weight, less bulk. That can work in some situations; I know there are a few people here who prefer M43 for theater work. I've used it, it's OK, but guess what? When photographing performers on stage, I had to use fast primes wide open, and
still had to use 3200-6400 ISO.
If I were a concert photographer, I'd most likely want to stick to a 35mm sensor camera, preferably one optimized for low-light performance, coupled with the fastest tele lenses I can get.
You're trying to make the case that M43 offers an advantage in low light scenarios when you need more DoF, and... there kinda don't seem to be any. You responded by... not offering any.
No, no, no! The whole point is that larger sensor does not offer an advantage in certain situations. There are many people who think that if they invest 4000€ for FF body and 5000€ for fast-aperture lenses, they can get better shots in any situation, especially in low light.
Yes yes yes! At best, you're saying that M43 keeps up with 35mm, while ignoring the ways 35mm is advantageous
and is normally used in low light situations.
As to the second half: Will dropping huge sums make you a better photographer? Of course not. Skill is far more important than a few technical details.
That said:
If you shoot in low light all the time,
and you want the best results (which isn't necessary for a lot of people today),
then 35mm is likely to be your best option.
I mean, really. Which photographic subjects usually benefit from greater DoF? Landscape, architecture, product photography, studio work, macro. How often are you doing that in low light? And in the few cases when you do, aren't you just going to put the camera on a tripod and set it for a low ISO, in which case better noise performance can be an advantage?
I often stop the lens down at ISO higher than 200 on my µ4/3. In these situations larger sensor would not have improved the IQ. At ISO 3200 and higher I usually shoot wide open, no matter what.
So basically, you're helping me prove my point. Thanks!
I concur that at ISO 200, the differences between are minimal. However, there should be no question that at ISO 3200, a 35mm sensor will produce a cleaner image than an M43 camera.
That doesn't matter to a lot of people, and I'm not telling anyone to adjust their standards. I'm only pointing out that M43 doesn't really have an advantage over 35mm in low light.
