Quoted By:
Cons:
>Less bokeh for equivalent aperture
>2 stops less light overall due to smaller sensor
>Lower resolution limiting maximum optimal display size to about 24x30
Why the cons aren't even really cons:
>Bokeh whoring is a fad and fucking retarded
>The loss of 2 stops of light isn't anywhere near a problem unless you are shooting in extreme situations where ISO 800-1600 simply aren't an option, which 90-95%% of pros will never need to worry about. Fact: in every blind test I've seen, literally NO PRO could pick out an MFT image vs. a full frame image, even in low light, at digital display resolutions.
>Almost no one prints that large on a regular basis. Most professional rarely print above 16x20 if they even print at all. On the rare occasions a pro needs to print over 24x30, they're better off renting medium format than full frame anyway.
I think there's a CLEAR winner here. I don't think there's anything that even comes close to MFT...If I ever need more than MFT, I'll just jump into a Fujifilm 50S. Full-frame is like a bastard middle ground that has no real advantages over MFT or MF.
