Full Frame vs Micro 4:3

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
Dem Bell Contributing Member • Posts: 703
Re: Full Frame vs Micro 4:3

Aaron801 wrote:

victorav wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Ainisru wrote:

You can have a nice, super capable weather resistant kit, an E-M5iii + 14-150mm f/4-5.6 with a weigh around 700g. Please find me another system- not as a dare, or provocation made towards you, but highlighting facts that M4/3 still has weight advantages and compactness at its side.

Easy. My phone beats this by a mile in terms of lightness and compactness.

Interesting, so you consider fixed lens cameras as a system camera.

Good point too and there's also for lot of us the m43 system is the best compromise between IQ and size. Something like a cell phone or even a lot of point and shoot cameras aren't great ergonomically and don't have enough/large enough on-body controls to satisfy. For a lot of folks m43 is a kind of sweet spot between size and IQ. I realize though that this "sweet spot" for other folks could be something bigger or smaller... I all depends on how you use the thing, what you do with it and what you're expectations are for IQ.

My expectations of IQ vary depending on what I photograph. Sometimes a bridge camera will be perfectly fine, sometimes a full frame can't get me where I want to be. That's why I use multiple cameras. If I had to use one camera, I'd probably go for the APS-C as the "sweet spot". Not trying to convince anyone, just saying I don't like the idea of being limited by the sweet spot. More cameras = more fun.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
MOD Smaug01
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow