1/2
>>4016398I am a micro 4/3 guy and I'll give you an honest opinion. My stance is that Full Frame is an amazing technology, but it's just impractical for 90% of us.
>Size & weightThe size and weight of FF lenses will take a toll on you in any kind of full-time work environment, particularly for event and wildlife shooters. This should be one of the primary concerns as a professional. If you have no portability, you're going to fatigue quickly and not perform your best. Youre going to miss shots, get the shakes and you're not going to enjoy shooting as much as you could be.
>Low lightFF excels in low light, but to say that is it's strength is not accurate. Any camera given adequate exposure time can produce stunning low light images. You can certainly do astrophotography with an m43 and expose the milky way to a satisfactory degree with acceptable noise. Where FF's true strength lies is capturing moving subjects in low light. You cannot leverage a longer exposure time against an m43's smaller sensor size when your subjects are moving.
>Megapixels20mp is more than adequate for most people's needs, including clients. When you are sending a set to a newly wed couple and the size is multiple gigabytes, do you think they're going to appreciate it? They're going to end up resizing themselves or asking you to do it for them. Clients don't want large file sizes.
Where you'll require more is in billboard and commercial product photography. People end up using extra pixels to compensate for poor framing, being able to merely crop out composition mistakes made when shooting. This is a crutch and will hinder your development as a photographer.
>Depth of fieldFF can produce a more pronounced bokeh, but this does not translate into a better performing system. This is a stylistic choice and is totally subjective. I like more realistic, subtle bokeh because that's closer to what our eyes do. If you like cream, that's your preference.
