>>3652208>So what makes Full Frame so good? I am new.It's a good compromise between quality, cost, features, and size.
Basically, you can get higher quality with medium format (which is basically defined as "anything larger than full frame"), but it comes with MUCH higher cost, larger size/weight, and the quality bump isn't that huge (plus, medium format cameras tend not to be as feature-packed as full frame, since there's less competition in the market).
And you can get lower cost going down to APS-C, but it costs you in image quality. It may or may not cost you in size--to a great extent, the size difference at this level comes from how high-end the camera body itself is, with the sensor size only making up a small portion of that. E.g., a Canon 7D (crop) and a Canon 5D (full frame) are about the same size. That being said, you CAN get much smaller crop-sensor cameras than the smallest full frame bodies on the market.
So, if you want to save a few bucks, or want to get the smallest system you can, crop makes sense. If you have a little extra money, you'll get better image quality out of full frame without much extra in terms of weight and size.
The reason MFT (Micro Four Thirds) is kind of a joke is that it's another image sensor size step down from APS-C, which means it's another drop in quality... but without a corresponding drop in size or price compared to APS-C (or even full frame, in some cases, depending on how you measure them). E.g., I own a Panasonic GF5 (micro four thirds), is about as small as MFT cameras come, and it's barely smaller than my (APS-C) Sony A6000 and *larger* than my (APS-C) Sony NEX-C3.
