Shooting with FF equipment is easy, smooth and the results are excellent. Still, the advantages compared to smaller sensor are not as clear in real life as they are on paper. Of course, the AF focusing in my Canon is in a class of its own, but on the other hand, it sure has to be when we are often talking about a rather narrow DoF.
Which brings us to the actual point. For example, last time I shot wedding in a dim church, and especially when shooting in an even darker party place with a full-frame, I often had to reduce the aperture so that the depth of field was not too narrow. This means that the ISO value had to be raised. With the mft equipment, I can shoot wide open without worry, because DoF corresponds to twice as small FF aperture.
So, for example, with the RF 70-200/2.8, I often had to reduce the aperture to f5.6 in order to have everything needed in focus, while with the mft I would have ended up with the same at f2.8. But with at a lower ISO.
...if you have to shoot the same DOF and exposure time, you do give up the noise advantage that FF would otherwise have. However, shooting the same DOF and exposure time on FF as mFT doesn't put FF at a disadvantage.
For example, let's say you needed f/5.6 to get the desired DOF and 1/200 to mitigate motion blur with FF and you could get the same using f/2.8 1/200 on mFT. So you shot your R6 using, say, 100mm f/5.6 1/200 ISO 6400 whereas you would have used 50mm f/2.8 1/200 ISO 1600 on your OM1. Neither enjoys an advantage over the other, with regards to noise, DOF, and motion blur with these settings.
Of course, with FF, I can get narrower DoF when needed. How important is it? Not much for me, I usually want a bit of context around the subject. Sure, when I want it, I do have FF.
For sure, if your typical use of FF is with the same DOF and exposure time as with mFT, then the noise advantage of FF will be lost.
My point is, that I have noticed many times that in real life situations mft is at least as usable as FF for me. And nowdays when AI softwares like Topaz Denoise etc. are getting better and better, it is reducing the sensor size difference even more.
The sensor size difference is the same as always, it's just that the difference doesn't mean as much for as many people. For example, 100 HP vs 50 HP is a big deal. 200 HP vs 100 HP is still a big deal, but not as much. 400 HP vs 200 HP doesn't really matter for most people. And 800 HP vs 400 HP would only make a difference for a small minority, and, in terms of the analogy, I think that's where FF vs mFT is today.
In short, the difference between FF and mFT is the same as ever, but as we climb up the hardware/software ladder, the practical difference for the photography most people do becomes less and less relevant.
Every system is awesome these days.
For a fact!
If you enjoy shooting mft, remember there’s not much you miss from FF world at the end of the day. And you also definitely get some cool things FF is missing.
Here's the way I like to look at it: would you like a 35-100 / 1.4 for mFT? FF has the equivalent today. What about "just" a 35-100 / 2? FF has the equivalent today. ISO 25? FF has the equivalent today. How about 50 MP? FF has it today. Don't need any of it? Or would be interested but it's too big/heavy/expensive? Then for the most part, FF doesn't really have anything to offer you that mFT won't do nicely and even better, all at a smaller size, weight, and price.
(The girl in the pics is my 3yo daughter)
