>>3546225I don't hate full frame. If I were a studio photographer I'd probably shoot FF if I couldn't afford MF. I'd also shoot FF if the majority or a significant portion of my work was in extreme low light situations, like entertainment event photography or astro. I'd also very likely shoot FF if I were a professional sports photographer shooing very high speed subjects like autosport.
I'm none of those things, and neither are the vast majority of professional photographers. I shoot (in no particular order) portraiture, weddings, corporate events, real estate, product and marketing photography, drone, landscape, general subject, macro, and very occasionally fashion, plus various video projects. MFT covers every bit of that with ease. Sometimes it cuts it very close, like super low lit ceremonies in historic chapels or dances where they don't want flash, but that's very rare, and the 1.2 oly primes manage it fantastically.
The reality is that MFT genuinely IS the better choice for the vast majority of photographers most of the time, and MFT gets such a bad rap from the industry, especially shills on youtube like Northrup, Polin, etc that I will shill for it every chance I get, because I'm passionate about photography and I genuinely want to help photogs the the absolute most out of every dollar they spend.
It's not easy making good money in photography, I'd say it's one of the lest forgiving creative professions there are, so making wise gear choices is critical. And if you're not a professional, going FF is just absolutely fucking retarded on a level that's unfathomable to me.
