>>4176204Yeah, there's a reason frans lanting is usually using a canon 1dx or nikon z7 instead of an OM-1 with an $8000 meme lens. The quality, especially when cropping in, just isn't up to what he's being paid for. It's a less versatile system. The zooms have less optical quality, cropping the cropped sensor just makes it even worse when it was already acceptable instead of excellent.
Micro four thirds is closer to shooting 35mm film than 35mm digital in terms of quality limitations (and in terms of size). Aside from the AF and continuous shooting mode it's a more traditional experience that asks more of the user because you can't ask more of the camera.
35mm digital today is the 21st century's medium format film.
>>4176209No. Objectively true. Micro four thirds is ALWAYS noisier. Noise increases as sensor area decreases. Computed signal to noise ratio will actually approximate a smaller sensor if you crop an image. The majority of professionals shoot on full frame unless the lack of portability with a zoom lens or any telephoto focal length is a total non-starter.
Pick the right tool for the job
Micro four thirds: Will never be as high quality, will never have the editing latitude
Full frame: Will never be as compact and light, will never have the sensor readout speed
never means never. micro four thirds is getting global shutter first assuming the industry doesn't completely abandon the format, full frame is getting extra stops of dynamic range and even less noise.
It's really sad because micro four thirds is genuinely good. Small sensors have huge advantages that full frame can't have, for when the advantages full frame does have don't matter. But the majority of consumers don't want them, they want micro four thirds to be just like full frame but cheaper and smaller. It's not possible so M43 is a dying system. They're just buying fuji, which is closer to that order.
