Another day, another comparison against full frame thread started by a m4/3 user...
Huh, hardly and I didn't make the video I just shared it as it is interesting, I don't and never start those kind of threads
Is it actually interesting? It is 1) a ridiculous comparison and 2) a thread along the theme of people validating their choice of choosing m4/3. You never see these stupid videos posted in the Sony, Nikon, Canon, L-mount, Medium Format, or Fujifilm forums.
If I was bored, I would hire a student to comb the forums and see how many weeks in a row we go without a m4/3 vs full frame thread being created. The results would not be encouraging.
Re 2 -- you might expect people who made the mainstream choice to be less interested in the nature of their choice?
I've had MFT and FE gear for over ten years. You get threads in the E-mount forums all the time about APSC vs FF, and across Casonikon. L-mount only appears in terms of "my Leica".
In general, these are sensible discussions about pros and cons, with the occasional "latest Canon body destroys Sony" thread. We even get sensible discussions about MFT gear as an extra or alternative option. Of course there are people who don't understand the physics of photography who think that (a) FF is always better, or (b) in low light just use a faster lens.
We don't really see threads about X influencer who says FE is better... In any case many posters have used multiple mounts and can make comments based on longer term ownership and use.
The heated debates are mostly about lenses, but lenses are the cost and performance determinants of a lot of photography.
And it wasn't a video (from the parts I watched) of someone validating their choice of choosing m4/3. He hadn't made that choice. He'd picked up two camera and lens combos which were in the Fstoppers 'office', and used them for a couple of weeks.
One point of interest to me was he found the om af to be better ... which I've slotted into the 'opinions can be quite variable' category.
"AF" covers a lot of ground - target acquisition, tracking, focus accuracy, focus speed, position prediction... My OM1 mk i is better at some things and my A7CR at others.
In general OM has three weaknesses: clarity of documentation about how it all works and how to use it, integration of all the parts into a system, and tracking (especially predictive AF). A lot of complaints about AF are because the OM1/OM3 system is very different from previous bodies, the OM1 mk i was under-developed at launch, and people haven't learned how to use the new system.
Then you have specific requirements, like how DMF works or the throw of an MF by wire lens and how it reacts to speed and or delicacy of MF (Yes, 100-400 GM, you are useless).
I have no experience of the latest Panasonic bodies, so no view on their AF. Lothar's extensive reports are useful.
TL
R It sort of depends what you are comparing against what, and for which use cases. However, OM1ii/OM3 can can be pretty good at some things, but a flagship from Casonikon is likely to be better at most things, apart from weight, cost and low-light.
A
