I'm interested to know how many of you shoot with both M4/3 and FF or APSC. Those that do, why? I realize that FF is better at low light and lower noise. But, in the real world, can you see a real difference unless viewed very close. And is the dynamic range really wildly different? Talk me out of getting a FF, please.
My shooting style is street, travel and general outings with local photo clubs that I'm involved. I know that for birding and wildlife, I'm better off with the M4/3 for the 2X crop. But, Belgium is a dark country in the winter, so ? .
Thanks for your thoughts,
I use m43, APSC, and FF. But I'm not a wildlife or big telephoto user, my use case is a standard zoom, F4 or variable being fine so long as the IQ is excellent, plus faster compact primes in the "normal" 40mm to 60mm range, and maybe a prime in the 70-85mm range. That's it. No interest or use for entire "systems," or Holy Trinity f2.8 zooms, or "Big Whites," or any of that. So I've given myself the fun of trying and having cameras and lenses in all three formats and like them all.
Yes, FF is better in low light, better dynamic range, and delivers more malleable files I call more "clean and sparkly." Yes, same is true of APSC versus m43 though by a much smaller margin. But FF is bulkier and heavier, though not horribly depending on your use case. When I use FF (Nikon Z) I am carrying only one or two primes and sometimes a standard Z 24-70 S zoom, more often no zoom. Because lugging a bunch of heavy stuff around saps the fun out of it.
The Nikon f1.8 S primes are Zeiss Otus quality at very reasonable prices for what they deliver. I do have the 50mm f1.8 S from that line and it's a knockout. As for the "soul," and the "art," and the "creativity," well, those qualities reside in
you. Either they are there in your eye, your mind, and your heart . . . or they are not.
It is true that the Z "S" line primes are bit bulky and heavy. However, Nikon Z also features light, compact, faster FF primes often dubbed the "muffins," that deliver excellent IQ and are loved in some quarters for their character rendering. A 40mm f2, two at 26mm and 28mm f2.8, and a 50mm f2.8 that is also an MC. I've noticed that many gear snobs, particularly at DPR, overlook or look down their noses at these lenses and their plastic construction. But they outperform their F mount "G" predecessors, which have produced many a classic photo. If one wanted to try FF, one of the smaller Z5/6/7/ZF bodies with one or two of those primes and maybe the 24-70 F4 S zoom (an "S" zoom acquirable used at very reasonable prices) is a relatively portable outfit.
Having said all that, though I will always use Z FF if for work or a once-only event or occasion for others, if for my own use, at least as often as FF I'll instead be rolling with one of the small bodies and a small fast prime or two, with or without a small standard zoom, in Olympus m43 or Nikon or Fuji APSC. The fun factor and the charm factor are irresistible with mini-size bodies and lenses that also deliver delightful images.
Another way to come at this might be: How much do you print? How large do you print? Because with recent sensors and everything being optimal with your shooting technique and exposure, up to, say, 11X14" or 11X16", honestly, format difference isn't going to matter substantially. And if you print very little, format difference basically doesn't matter at all.
