"M43 is usually good for practical sense when image quality isn't as important but getting the shot is." I'd say that this is true, but doesn't really get to the whole story, which is that the IQ of m43 is far better than a lot of folks believe and may just be good enough to where the improvement that FF offers over it isn't even appreciated. A larger sensor camera is of course a real advantage if you're printing very large or shooting a lot in very low light, though a lot of that second part is mitigated somewhat with m43, if you're shooting still subjects and can use the IBIS (or something like a tripod, for very low light). When I bought my first m43 camera I did the research, looking at a lot of images blown up large to see just how much detail that these little cameras were capable of. I found that they were very capable and now a few bodies later and a few more generations of tech and they're even better IQ-wise.
I would love to have a FF rig too, for shooting certain kinds of things, but I find even when I'm making up good sized prints (of about 14" wide) that for the vast majority of what I do m43 works without compromise and has real advantages as far as size and cost. I can take a several lens kit of 2 fast primes, a fisheye and a couple of zooms, with my Pen F body that all fits into a super-compact bag that's just 10" on the long side... and I'd say that I spent less than $1500 overall on a very versatile kit which includes a flash that I can use off camera, stands umbrellas, etc (though nearly all of it was used).
The conventional wisdom seems to be to chase after the very best IQ, but if you're really not utilizing all of the IQ that a larger, heavier (not so much just a body paired with a smaller prime, but a whole kit), much more expensive system that you're less likely to have with you to get the shot then you might actually be better served by something that's smaller, lighter and cheaper which still might have all of the IQ that you'd ever really need...
Last edited:
