Micro 4/3rds vs. Full Frame

macrouser wrote:

The myth persists that the size of the sensor changes the depth of field or the resolution.

The sensor only changes the size of the image you have to work with and the angle of view you get with a given focal length lens.

Lenses that are designed for small sensors can be made smaller and lighter because the image produced does not have to cover as large an area.

Lenses designed for large sensors have to be larger to get as much exposure on the sensor. They have to produce a much larger image and make the exposure as even as possible.

The appearance that smaller sensors have greater depth of field is because the lens uses a shorter focal length to get the same angle of view that you would see with a larger sensor.

The differences between ff and apsc are much less than many seem to think, but the differences can be meaningful. I have a pretty thorough understanding and there is a reason i keep both ff and apsc. Im not sure I understand what you mean about the myth of resolution being different. I did just add a 5x lens so I will likely use my ff for macro a bit more as I will likely rarely desire an image that is 5x + on an apsc. But less wear and tear on the more expensive body will be a reason.

However, as that lens starts at 2.5x and is fully manual, I will 100% still be using my old set up often (100mm 2.8L with a raynox250 in my pocket). The Raynox is really good, but it does add some aberations. So just for the sake of bringing up one scenario, lets assume I have both my 80d and my R6 with me along with my 100. My framing would be uncropped with the apsc. Because we are using flash, exposure/low light handling between the cameras is a non issue. My 80d gives 24mpx resolution. My R6 is 20mpx, but if I need to crop it to match the 80d frame, I am left with 7mpx. So there is certainly a major difference in resolution in this scenario.

Where there is a similar situation but I think the R6 may retain an advantage even after crop, is in poorer light conditions. I tested this with birds. Specifically an owl nest. This isnt just a given or inherit issue when comparing FF to APSC, but it is when comparing an 80d to R6. Im not sure I will keep the opinion once I compare prints, but it looks pretty obvious that if we view equivalent fov with equivalent settings, once again in worse lighting conditions, the R6 maintains better detail than the 80d, even after I crop away so much of the image.

If I didnt find legitimate issues where one camera was better than the other in a given situation, I would not own an apsc at all probably. I would probably buy the R as a backup to my R6 instead of adding the R7. Or, really, if APSC cameras could reproduce all ff images, I would just keep less expensive apsc cameras. As it is, there are def situations I just cant reproduce a ff  result with an apsc. No one can. Its physical limitations. There are also times, my ff cant reproduce what my apsc makes. I tend to find myself at the edges often - portraits with wide open apertures, landscapes with my widest lens, and we all know the balances in macro.