The 1" nonsense

[KameraKnut]

Well seen.

It is true that now the Nikon 1 system is a dead duck, no “system camera” exists for a 1” sensor; the smallest system camera is now M43.

Is it really anymore?

Just sayin...

Let's see that comparison with a long telephoto, macro and superzoom.

Just sayin ...

We can play this game all day long.

There simply is not a definitive advantage anymore in size and weight of MFT with other mirrorless systems and these are all the rubbish MFT fanboy arguments, the same ones APS-C fanboys use when defending their systems against criticism from FF aficionados and the same ones 1" sensor guys (and gals) use to smear MFT (ever seen an FZ1000 up close).

The fact is the "good enough" argument falls on deaf ears when the facts really don't support that viewpoint anymore.

So long as you use carefully selected "facts", eh?

My kit is in my gear profile. Match it.

I can't match it. Any APS-C mirrorless can easily outgun an MFT system with only at worst a minor increase in bulk.

Now you're just trolling.

How can I be trolling in the Open talk forum. Please.

--

https://www.flickr.com/gp/131683376@N08/hfcyS7

 

[KameraKnut]

I appreciate that when people use 1" as an argumentation tool, it's usually for the purpose of rhetoric and not really suggesting it as a practical solution (the recommender often does not own or use a 1" camera). However, once this rhetoric becomes an automatic reflex, it's worth pointing out that practically, it is often nonsensical.

You don't buy the sensor, you buy the system.

You need different focal lengths, you need different sequential speeds, you need different ways to trigger the camera, you need different ways to program the camera, you need different kind lenses (macros, super telephoto, ultra-wide angle etc).

There is no 1" camera nor 1" system that does what the m4/3 system does.

That cuts both ways. I can easily say there is no MFT camera and lens that can do what a Sony RX10-IV does.

No it doesn't. As system camera allows you to build a SYSTEM that allows you to do what is needed.

One can take ie. GX85 with a 12-32mm + 35-100mm + 100-300mm. And then swap to lens that is needed at the moment. When going to restaurant at the evening, take just the GX85 with 12-32mm and leave rest behind.

That is exactly why the SYSTEM is always superior to any all-in-one cameras. You tailor it as you need it.

If we follow your argument and logic through, one can say that smartphone wins every day the Sony RX10-IV in every situation. And you know it ain't true.

What?

You've literally proven my point. What is a "system"? The MFT "system" encompasses dozens of camera bodies and lenses. Are you suggesting that I carry several bodies and lenses just to accomplish what the RX10-IV can do with just one, fixed lens camera?

I did proof you wrong.

Where in your RX10-IV is the macro that m4/3 can get with them, like 30mm and 60mm? Where is the automatic focus stacking in the RX10-IV for macro, architecture, landscape and even close-up photographers? Where is the fast lens for evening street photographs or for general use at the events? etc.

Yes, SYSTEM means that you OWN SYSTEM. And you will even CARRY some or even whole SYSTEM with you to different places.

There is no single camera that can do all that the SYSTEM camera can do.

I have multiple bodies, multiple lenses, fairly complex flash system, tripods, monopods etc back of the car. I have few different kind bags from small shoulder bag (body + lens or 2 lenses and camera at hands) to full packbag. All next to tents and all. I can drive to location and either pick up on the route from grocery store the dry food and water for a week hike, or I can just stop by somewhere along road and pick one lens and one body and go after a moose with super telephoto or some wildlife flower with a macro lens. I can take the same lens and mount it to drone and fly it up in the air. I can put the camera in the watertight box and submerge it while snorkeling.

I have more capabilities, more possibilities, more creativity with the SYSTEM than with any bridge camera that there is.

That is what you buy for, not the sensor, but the system. That is what was great with Canon and Nikon that you could get so a lot of possibilities with those systems, but m4/3 has evolved so far more than what it was 10 years ago. And that is because the m4/3 is a open standard system, and same thing is with Sony now, they are exactly going after the SYSTEM first, not the sensor.

Sure, if you buy multiple bodies and lenses and other gear you have great versatility and you STILL cannot do what the RX10-IV can do, sorry. that's just the way it is.

 

[fishy wishy]

Sorry, I hadn't realised there was any 1" sensor nonsense.

I consider 1" mainly for premium compacts. The bridge cameras I saw with them had a rather small range for a bridge camera.

Anyway, with about 1/8 the sensor size of FF, I don't see how anyone takes it for serious work rather than travel. m4/3 I regard as something for travel and zoom interchangeable lens work, for high quality demands I'd suggest FF & primes, or big ultrawide zooms.

 

[KameraKnut]

M43 advocates are a very special breed.

Indeed. I've been on these forums for many years (had different ID's of course) and have noticed the reflexive defensive posturing of the MFT gang. They buy into a system that offers amazing compactness while sacrificing some image quality control latitude and then they stubbornly refuse to admit their camera systems are largely compromises. I even did the same thing when I was in MFT, which I was deeply into for quite some time.

Sample conversation OP posted is missing context, but that's to be expected. Good luck OP, you need it.

 

[KameraKnut]

Sorry, I hadn't realised there was any 1" sensor nonsense.

I consider 1" mainly for premium compacts. The bridge cameras I saw with them had a rather small range for a bridge camera.

What do you consider a small range?

Anyway, with about 1/8 the sensor size of FF, I don't see how anyone takes it for serious work rather than travel. m4/3 I regard as something for travel and zoom interchangeable lens work, for high quality demands I'd suggest FF & primes, or big ultrawide zooms.

 

[New Day Rising]

Well seen.

It is true that now the Nikon 1 system is a dead duck, no “system camera” exists for a 1” sensor; the smallest system camera is now M43.

But then most of those tedious and stupid “making the same photograph” and "total shight" posts have little to do with the real world of cameras and of their use. We are in the world of armchair theorisers who just for starters, do not understand the differences between Engineering and theoretical science.

But I have often marvelled how the M43 system creates such fear and loathing amongst many armchair photographers as can be often seen on this forum. Some of our “top Posters” on this forum do not even own a M43 camera.

To those who actually take photographs the advantages of the M43 system in many situations are quite evident.

For example, what did I take on a recent hike that involved a stiff 500m climb. The EM5 with a 12-35 and 35-100 or the good old D700 with the 24-120? Sensor noise against getting Knackered.

I did an 18 km hike with a stiff 700 m climb on the weekend.

I left my FF (Sony A7ii behind). I also left my m4/3 (EM-1 mk1 and EM-5 mk1) behind. What I took was quite a bit lighter and not really any less compact than those two - a Canon 700D with a 18-55 lens. Good IQ and the battery lasts forever.

I love my m4/3 for some uses (it got a good workout the previous day), but it's not necessarily the lightest thing I have. Mind you, what knackered me was the really steep mountain. A few hundred grams of camera really wouldn't have made much difference.

Don't suppose you know the actual weight of your EM5 plus the two lenses compared with the D700 and one lens? Just curious.

 

[sportyaccordy]

M43 advocates are a very special breed.

Indeed. I've been on these forums for many years (had different ID's of course) and have noticed the reflexive defensive posturing of the MFT gang. They buy into a system that offers amazing compactness while sacrificing some image quality control latitude and then they stubbornly refuse to admit their camera systems are largely compromises. I even did the same thing when I was in MFT, which I was deeply into for quite some time.

Sample conversation OP posted is missing context, but that's to be expected. Good luck OP, you need it.

The compromise bias always kills me. I'm sure the OP has used the very same arguments hes complaining about against >MFT formats.

Anecdotally speaking it does seem that format angst and system dissatisfaction seem inversely proportional to sensor size.

 

[KameraKnut]

M43 advocates are a very special breed.

Indeed. I've been on these forums for many years (had different ID's of course) and have noticed the reflexive defensive posturing of the MFT gang. They buy into a system that offers amazing compactness while sacrificing some image quality control latitude and then they stubbornly refuse to admit their camera systems are largely compromises. I even did the same thing when I was in MFT, which I was deeply into for quite some time.

Sample conversation OP posted is missing context, but that's to be expected. Good luck OP, you need it.

The compromise bias always kills me. I'm sure the OP has used the very same arguments hes complaining about against >MFT formats.

Anecdotally speaking it does seem that format angst and system dissatisfaction seem inversely proportional to sensor size.

Yes, spot on.

 

[Martin.au]

Well seen.

It is true that now the Nikon 1 system is a dead duck, no “system camera” exists for a 1” sensor; the smallest system camera is now M43.

Is it really anymore?

Just sayin...

Let's see that comparison with a long telephoto, macro and superzoom.

Just sayin ...

We can play this game all day long.

There simply is not a definitive advantage anymore in size and weight of MFT with other mirrorless systems and these are all the rubbish MFT fanboy arguments, the same ones APS-C fanboys use when defending their systems against criticism from FF aficionados and the same ones 1" sensor guys (and gals) use to smear MFT (ever seen an FZ1000 up close).

The fact is the "good enough" argument falls on deaf ears when the facts really don't support that viewpoint anymore.

So long as you use carefully selected "facts", eh?

My kit is in my gear profile. Match it.

I can't match it. Any APS-C mirrorless can easily outgun an MFT system with only at worst a minor increase in bulk.

I know you can’t, so do your best. Let’s see some numbers to back up your claims.

You should make two lists. An APS-C system that is nearest as possible to mine (equivalent lenses), and an APS-C system that takes advantage of the extra 2/3 stop of IQ available to that format. Let's see how much extra size and weight is involved in taking full advantage of the extra format area.

 

[kiwi2]

That's why when buying a new camera, I look at the dpreview test scene and decide what level of IQ I would be happy with.

Not that easy, If you count with lenses you would want, compatibility, price, ergonomics, etc.

Of course I will also look at lens selection, size and weight, price etc.

But the first thing I look at is the performance of the sensor that the system is going to be built around. I need to weigh that up against the other factors and decide where I need to compromise.

 

[Martin.au]

M43 advocates are a very special breed.

Indeed. I've been on these forums for many years (had different ID's of course) and have noticed the reflexive defensive posturing of the MFT gang. They buy into a system that offers amazing compactness while sacrificing some image quality control latitude and then they stubbornly refuse to admit their camera systems are largely compromises. I even did the same thing when I was in MFT, which I was deeply into for quite some time.

Sample conversation OP posted is missing context, but that's to be expected. Good luck OP, you need it.

The compromise bias always kills me. I'm sure the OP has used the very same arguments hes complaining about against >MFT formats.

Anecdotally speaking it does seem that format angst and system dissatisfaction seem inversely proportional to sensor size.

This thread is chock full of reactionary responses, and misleading comparisons (some quite intentional) from non M4/3 users. For some reason that doesn't seem to bother you.

You accuse the OP of having "used the very same arguments he's complaining about against >MFT formats." without evidence.

An argument that always kills me is this one (a variant of your final sentence).

That "format X" users have an an inferiority complex, format angst, etc....fill in the blank.

This is just poisoning the well. It says to me that you don't want to refute their arguments (or more likely can't). You just want a way to ignore what their saying, and make them be quiet.

There are a handful of users who will reflexively defend brands, formats, their own particular quirks, whatever, in every forum, but dismissing someone's argument because they happen to use the same "thing" as someone else who is fanatical about a topic is fallacious.

So, why does this argument kill me?

Because all it says to me is that whoever is making that claim is gutless. Too cowardly to actually debate, and instead reliant upon bullying and fallacies to avoid discussion. For them it's not about debate. It's because they want to feel superior.

Now, I have no problem with calling someone out for "their" reflexive, ultra defensive behaviour, but when you try and tar everyone who uses the same gear as them with that brush? Yeah, gutless.

 

[Martin.au]

?

.

Now you're just trolling.

How can I be trolling in the Open talk forum. Please.

You can troll any forum. Are you just clueless, or have you not been on the internet very long?

 

[tko]

For example, what did I take on a recent hike that involved a stiff 500m climb. The EM5 with a 12-35 and 35-100 or the good old D700 with the 24-120? Sensor noise against getting Knackered.

A stiff 500M climb? That's a hop and a skip. Try 6000 feet and twenty miles with a forty pound pack.

The point is, to many of us, the loss of a few pounds is no advantage at all. I weigh 190 pound. Two pounds is 1% of my body weight. Not even noticeable. What was noticeable in my hikes was when I lost 10 pounds by cutting out the snacks

Of course, maybe you have the opposite position. You don't need the extra photographic quality and the weight does make a difference.

To each his own.

 

[FrancoD]

For example, what did I take on a recent hike that involved a stiff 500m climb. The EM5 with a 12-35 and 35-100 or the good old D700 with the 24-120? Sensor noise against getting Knackered.

A stiff 500M climb? That's a hop and a skip. Try 6000 feet and twenty miles with a forty pound pack.

The point is, to many of us, the loss of a few pounds is no advantage at all. I weigh 190 pound. Two pounds is 1% of my body weight. Not even noticeable. What was noticeable in my hikes was when I lost 10 pounds by cutting out the snacks

Of course, maybe you have the opposite position. You don't need the extra photographic quality and the weight does make a difference.

To each his own.

An often discussed topic in the hiking forums is the cost per ounce saved one is prepared to pay .

$30- 40 is not that uncommon.

That is , some will pay $300 to $400 to save 10 ounces.

 

[KameraKnut]

Well seen.

It is true that now the Nikon 1 system is a dead duck, no “system camera” exists for a 1” sensor; the smallest system camera is now M43.

Is it really anymore?

Just sayin...

Let's see that comparison with a long telephoto, macro and superzoom.

Just sayin ...

We can play this game all day long.

There simply is not a definitive advantage anymore in size and weight of MFT with other mirrorless systems and these are all the rubbish MFT fanboy arguments, the same ones APS-C fanboys use when defending their systems against criticism from FF aficionados and the same ones 1" sensor guys (and gals) use to smear MFT (ever seen an FZ1000 up close).

The fact is the "good enough" argument falls on deaf ears when the facts really don't support that viewpoint anymore.

So long as you use carefully selected "facts", eh?

My kit is in my gear profile. Match it.

I can't match it. Any APS-C mirrorless can easily outgun an MFT system with only at worst a minor increase in bulk.

I know you can’t, so do your best. Let’s see some numbers to back up your claims.

You should make two lists. An APS-C system that is nearest as possible to mine (equivalent lenses), and an APS-C system that takes advantage of the extra 2/3 stop of IQ available to that format. Let's see how much extra size and weight is involved in taking full advantage of the extra format area.

There's no such thing as a "stop" in IQ.

By the way, take a look at my past gear list. I've owned many, many MFT cameras and lenses, from the E-PL1 and GX1 to the E-M5-II and the GH4. I have been an MFT fanboy as well, I know all the arguments. I was quite happy shooting away with my cute little cameras and quite happy rationalizing my decisions until I started playing around with full frame and "good" APS-C cameras. It's only when you go back in time and compare images from the two formats side by side, you realize that MFT lacks much more in what is pleasing to the eye in an image than just a little more grain. As devotees of our selected concerns, we see and hear what we want to believe. It's an interesting phenomenon much like the McGurk Effect. I literally compared an E-M5-II with a 12-40/2.8 Pro to a Sony A7II with the 24-70/4 CZ and convinced myself that the images were so close in IQ that it made no difference at all. However, I kept going back to the set and soon realized if I just ignored which image came from which camera and considered objectively the same images, shot with the same settings, at the same distance. it appeared clear to me that as much as I hated to admit it, the images from the A7II were much more appealing to me. They were just plain easier on my eyes. This was a revelation!

So when I make a claim that any APS-C system (not quite true but close enough) can outgun any MFT system, it is not from the perspective of a fanboy or armchair reviewer regurgitating Internet data, it is a claim substantiated by years of experience in both film and digital photography and having spent countless thousands on cameras and shooting daily as a passion.

So sure, I can quantify but I'd rather not. It's pointless to try to change beliefs. I am merely expressing my opinion. If you don't buy in, that's up to you, I have better things to do with my time.

Cheers.

--

https://www.flickr.com/gp/131683376@N08/hfcyS7

 

[KameraKnut]

M43 advocates are a very special breed.

Indeed. I've been on these forums for many years (had different ID's of course) and have noticed the reflexive defensive posturing of the MFT gang. They buy into a system that offers amazing compactness while sacrificing some image quality control latitude and then they stubbornly refuse to admit their camera systems are largely compromises. I even did the same thing when I was in MFT, which I was deeply into for quite some time.

Sample conversation OP posted is missing context, but that's to be expected. Good luck OP, you need it.

The compromise bias always kills me. I'm sure the OP has used the very same arguments hes complaining about against >MFT formats.

Anecdotally speaking it does seem that format angst and system dissatisfaction seem inversely proportional to sensor size.

This thread is chock full of reactionary responses, and misleading comparisons (some quite intentional) from non M4/3 users. For some reason that doesn't seem to bother you.

You accuse the OP of having "used the very same arguments he's complaining about against >MFT formats." without evidence.

An argument that always kills me is this one (a variant of your final sentence).

That "format X" users have an an inferiority complex, format angst, etc....fill in the blank.

This is just poisoning the well. It says to me that you don't want to refute their arguments (or more likely can't). You just want a way to ignore what their saying, and make them be quiet.

There are a handful of users who will reflexively defend brands, formats, their own particular quirks, whatever, in every forum, but dismissing someone's argument because they happen to use the same "thing" as someone else who is fanatical about a topic is fallacious.

So, why does this argument kill me?

Because all it says to me is that whoever is making that claim is gutless. Too cowardly to actually debate, and instead reliant upon bullying and fallacies to avoid discussion. For them it's not about debate. It's because they want to feel superior.

Now, I have no problem with calling someone out for "their" reflexive, ultra defensive behaviour, but when you try and tar everyone who uses the same gear as them with that brush? Yeah, gutless.

But it's true, especially on the forums. I've seen this tendency for years now. Go to the Panasonic compact forums and get a load of the defensiveness or the Powershot forum for that matter.

Your reaction above is typical for an MFT fanboy. "Oh yeh, prove it!". Heard that one a hundred times. You may want to review a recent post of mine.

Quite frankly, the MFT format suits travelers that don't mind making compromises in image quality and performance, feeble old men that can't carry any gear anymore, women and cheapskates. There are exceptions of course but for the most part, these are my conclusions based on my experience and observations in over 45 years of photography and watching MFT grow from inception. No doubt, Panasonic and Olympus make excellent cameras and lenses that suit the needs of many but this constant banner waving of "almost as good" image quality gets to be too much. Many of us are not happy with "good enough" as witnessed by the phenomenal popularity now in FF mirrorless systems.

The one who's "gutless" is the one who can't face reality.

 

[Martin.au]

Well seen.

It is true that now the Nikon 1 system is a dead duck, no “system camera” exists for a 1” sensor; the smallest system camera is now M43.

Is it really anymore?

Just sayin...

Let's see that comparison with a long telephoto, macro and superzoom.

Just sayin ...

We can play this game all day long.

There simply is not a definitive advantage anymore in size and weight of MFT with other mirrorless systems and these are all the rubbish MFT fanboy arguments, the same ones APS-C fanboys use when defending their systems against criticism from FF aficionados and the same ones 1" sensor guys (and gals) use to smear MFT (ever seen an FZ1000 up close).

The fact is the "good enough" argument falls on deaf ears when the facts really don't support that viewpoint anymore.

So long as you use carefully selected "facts", eh?

My kit is in my gear profile. Match it.

I can't match it. Any APS-C mirrorless can easily outgun an MFT system with only at worst a minor increase in bulk.

I know you can’t, so do your best. Let’s see some numbers to back up your claims.

You should make two lists. An APS-C system that is nearest as possible to mine (equivalent lenses), and an APS-C system that takes advantage of the extra 2/3 stop of IQ available to that format. Let's see how much extra size and weight is involved in taking full advantage of the extra format area.

There's no such thing as a "stop" in IQ.

Yeah, I saw you don't understand equivalence a few posts back.

By the way, take a look at my past gear list. I've owned many, many MFT cameras and lenses, from the E-PL1 and GX1 to the E-M5-II and the GH4. I have been an MFT fanboy as well, I know all the arguments. I was quite happy shooting away with my cute little cameras and quite happy rationalizing my decisions until I started playing around with full frame and "good" APS-C cameras. It's only when you go back in time and compare images from the two formats side by side, you realize that MFT lacks much more in what is pleasing to the eye in an image than just a little more grain. As devotees of our selected concerns, we see and hear what we want to believe. It's an interesting phenomenon much like the McGurk Effect. I literally compared an E-M5-II with a 12-40/2.8 Pro to a Sony A7II with the 24-70/4 CZ and convinced myself that the images were so close in IQ that it made no difference at all. However, I kept going back to the set and soon realized if I just ignored which image came from which camera and considered objectively the same images, shot with the same settings, at the same distance. it appeared clear to me that as much as I hated to admit it, the images from the A7II were much more appealing to me. They were just plain easier on my eyes. This was a revelation!

So you were a fanboy. Guess what. You still are. Just of a different thing.

So when I make a claim that any APS-C system (not quite true but close enough) can outgun any MFT system, it is not from the perspective of a fanboy or armchair reviewer regurgitating Internet data, it is a claim substantiated by years of experience in both film and digital photography and having spent countless thousands on cameras and shooting daily as a passion.

So sure, I can quantify but I'd rather not. It's pointless to try to change beliefs. I am merely expressing my opinion. If you don't buy in, that's up to you, I have better things to do with my time.

It's pointless trying to change beliefs? This is true. Especially when the poster in question (that would be you) won't even assess whether their beliefs are true, and avoids any sort of objective comparison that may show them to be in error.

 

[Martin.au]

M43 advocates are a very special breed.

Indeed. I've been on these forums for many years (had different ID's of course) and have noticed the reflexive defensive posturing of the MFT gang. They buy into a system that offers amazing compactness while sacrificing some image quality control latitude and then they stubbornly refuse to admit their camera systems are largely compromises. I even did the same thing when I was in MFT, which I was deeply into for quite some time.

Sample conversation OP posted is missing context, but that's to be expected. Good luck OP, you need it.

The compromise bias always kills me. I'm sure the OP has used the very same arguments hes complaining about against >MFT formats.

Anecdotally speaking it does seem that format angst and system dissatisfaction seem inversely proportional to sensor size.

This thread is chock full of reactionary responses, and misleading comparisons (some quite intentional) from non M4/3 users. For some reason that doesn't seem to bother you.

You accuse the OP of having "used the very same arguments he's complaining about against >MFT formats." without evidence.

An argument that always kills me is this one (a variant of your final sentence).

That "format X" users have an an inferiority complex, format angst, etc....fill in the blank.

This is just poisoning the well. It says to me that you don't want to refute their arguments (or more likely can't). You just want a way to ignore what their saying, and make them be quiet.

There are a handful of users who will reflexively defend brands, formats, their own particular quirks, whatever, in every forum, but dismissing someone's argument because they happen to use the same "thing" as someone else who is fanatical about a topic is fallacious.

So, why does this argument kill me?

Because all it says to me is that whoever is making that claim is gutless. Too cowardly to actually debate, and instead reliant upon bullying and fallacies to avoid discussion. For them it's not about debate. It's because they want to feel superior.

Now, I have no problem with calling someone out for "their" reflexive, ultra defensive behaviour, but when you try and tar everyone who uses the same gear as them with that brush? Yeah, gutless.

But it's true, especially on the forums. I've seen this tendency for years now. Go to the Panasonic compact forums and get a load of the defensiveness or the Powershot forum for that matter.

Your reaction above is typical for an MFT fanboy. "Oh yeh, prove it!". Heard that one a hundred times. You may want to review a recent post of mine.

Quite frankly, the MFT format suits travelers that don't mind making compromises in image quality and performance, feeble old men that can't carry any gear anymore, women and cheapskates. There are exceptions of course but for the most part, these are my conclusions based on my experience and observations in over 45 years of photography and watching MFT grow from inception. No doubt, Panasonic and Olympus make excellent cameras and lenses that suit the needs of many but this constant banner waving of "almost as good" image quality gets to be too much. Many of us are not happy with "good enough" as witnessed by the phenomenal popularity now in FF mirrorless systems.

The one who's "gutless" is the one who can't face reality.

Wow. Stay classy. Thanks for making my point for me.

 

[KameraKnut]

M43 advocates are a very special breed.

Indeed. I've been on these forums for many years (had different ID's of course) and have noticed the reflexive defensive posturing of the MFT gang. They buy into a system that offers amazing compactness while sacrificing some image quality control latitude and then they stubbornly refuse to admit their camera systems are largely compromises. I even did the same thing when I was in MFT, which I was deeply into for quite some time.

Sample conversation OP posted is missing context, but that's to be expected. Good luck OP, you need it.

The compromise bias always kills me. I'm sure the OP has used the very same arguments hes complaining about against >MFT formats.

Anecdotally speaking it does seem that format angst and system dissatisfaction seem inversely proportional to sensor size.

This thread is chock full of reactionary responses, and misleading comparisons (some quite intentional) from non M4/3 users. For some reason that doesn't seem to bother you.

You accuse the OP of having "used the very same arguments he's complaining about against >MFT formats." without evidence.

An argument that always kills me is this one (a variant of your final sentence).

That "format X" users have an an inferiority complex, format angst, etc....fill in the blank.

This is just poisoning the well. It says to me that you don't want to refute their arguments (or more likely can't). You just want a way to ignore what their saying, and make them be quiet.

There are a handful of users who will reflexively defend brands, formats, their own particular quirks, whatever, in every forum, but dismissing someone's argument because they happen to use the same "thing" as someone else who is fanatical about a topic is fallacious.

So, why does this argument kill me?

Because all it says to me is that whoever is making that claim is gutless. Too cowardly to actually debate, and instead reliant upon bullying and fallacies to avoid discussion. For them it's not about debate. It's because they want to feel superior.

Now, I have no problem with calling someone out for "their" reflexive, ultra defensive behaviour, but when you try and tar everyone who uses the same gear as them with that brush? Yeah, gutless.

But it's true, especially on the forums. I've seen this tendency for years now. Go to the Panasonic compact forums and get a load of the defensiveness or the Powershot forum for that matter.

Your reaction above is typical for an MFT fanboy. "Oh yeh, prove it!". Heard that one a hundred times. You may want to review a recent post of mine.

Quite frankly, the MFT format suits travelers that don't mind making compromises in image quality and performance, feeble old men that can't carry any gear anymore, women and cheapskates. There are exceptions of course but for the most part, these are my conclusions based on my experience and observations in over 45 years of photography and watching MFT grow from inception. No doubt, Panasonic and Olympus make excellent cameras and lenses that suit the needs of many but this constant banner waving of "almost as good" image quality gets to be too much. Many of us are not happy with "good enough" as witnessed by the phenomenal popularity now in FF mirrorless systems.

The one who's "gutless" is the one who can't face reality.

Wow. Stay classy. Thanks for making my point for me.

Nice comeback (not really), did you think that one up or did you Goggle "Great comebacks from forum embarrassments".

 

[KameraKnut]

Well seen.

It is true that now the Nikon 1 system is a dead duck, no “system camera” exists for a 1” sensor; the smallest system camera is now M43.

Is it really anymore?

Just sayin...

Let's see that comparison with a long telephoto, macro and superzoom.

Just sayin ...

We can play this game all day long.

There simply is not a definitive advantage anymore in size and weight of MFT with other mirrorless systems and these are all the rubbish MFT fanboy arguments, the same ones APS-C fanboys use when defending their systems against criticism from FF aficionados and the same ones 1" sensor guys (and gals) use to smear MFT (ever seen an FZ1000 up close).

The fact is the "good enough" argument falls on deaf ears when the facts really don't support that viewpoint anymore.

So long as you use carefully selected "facts", eh?

My kit is in my gear profile. Match it.

I can't match it. Any APS-C mirrorless can easily outgun an MFT system with only at worst a minor increase in bulk.

I know you can’t, so do your best. Let’s see some numbers to back up your claims.

You should make two lists. An APS-C system that is nearest as possible to mine (equivalent lenses), and an APS-C system that takes advantage of the extra 2/3 stop of IQ available to that format. Let's see how much extra size and weight is involved in taking full advantage of the extra format area.

There's no such thing as a "stop" in IQ.

Yeah, I saw you don't understand equivalence a few posts back.

I understand equivalence completely. There are no "stops" of IQ, period.

By the way, take a look at my past gear list. I've owned many, many MFT cameras and lenses, from the E-PL1 and GX1 to the E-M5-II and the GH4. I have been an MFT fanboy as well, I know all the arguments. I was quite happy shooting away with my cute little cameras and quite happy rationalizing my decisions until I started playing around with full frame and "good" APS-C cameras. It's only when you go back in time and compare images from the two formats side by side, you realize that MFT lacks much more in what is pleasing to the eye in an image than just a little more grain. As devotees of our selected concerns, we see and hear what we want to believe. It's an interesting phenomenon much like the McGurk Effect. I literally compared an E-M5-II with a 12-40/2.8 Pro to a Sony A7II with the 24-70/4 CZ and convinced myself that the images were so close in IQ that it made no difference at all. However, I kept going back to the set and soon realized if I just ignored which image came from which camera and considered objectively the same images, shot with the same settings, at the same distance. it appeared clear to me that as much as I hated to admit it, the images from the A7II were much more appealing to me. They were just plain easier on my eyes. This was a revelation!

So you were a fanboy. Guess what. You still are. Just of a different thing.

??

So when I make a claim that any APS-C system (not quite true but close enough) can outgun any MFT system, it is not from the perspective of a fanboy or armchair reviewer regurgitating Internet data, it is a claim substantiated by years of experience in both film and digital photography and having spent countless thousands on cameras and shooting daily as a passion.

So sure, I can quantify but I'd rather not. It's pointless to try to change beliefs. I am merely expressing my opinion. If you don't buy in, that's up to you, I have better things to do with my time.

It's pointless trying to change beliefs? This is true. Especially when the poster in question (that would be you) won't even assess whether their beliefs are true, and avoids any sort of objective comparison that may show them to be in error.

You didn't read my post or you may have and suffer from confirmation bias.

I already posted two examples showing APS-C systems equaling MFT in bulk. You want more? You want me to match your kit, lens for lens? That is dumb. I have an APS-C camera body and two lenses covering 28-345mm in the exact SAME bag I used to keep my E-M5-II with just a 12-40/2.8! That's the bottom line. What's in your bag? Quantifying displacement in cubic millimeters or weight in grams is nonsense and counterproductive.

This topic has been hashed and rehashed ad nusium. Times have changed, even DSLR's are smaller now and their lenses. The distinction as some enthusiasts love to flaunt is so minor as not to be a factor anymore especially given the burgeoning weight and form factor of the newest "professional" quality MFT cameras. Then there's the price. $1800USD for a G9 body? What?!?!

--

https://www.flickr.com/gp/131683376@N08/hfcyS7