>>4016138>larger sensorI was with you right up until here. There are 3 very specific use cases for full frame sensors that I know of.
>astrophotography>moving subjects in low light>commercial product and billboard photography Notice I didn't once mention the "superior" depth of field. Thats because its not superior, merely more pronounced and is a subjective choice of style.
Micro 4/3 and aps-c decreases your margin of error as a camera operator, which is why I recommend newcomers start with these systems. Not only are they more affordable for a newcomer who should be investing in glass over bodies, but they force you to master the 3 cornerstones of photography; shutter speed, aperture and exposure. Full frame sensors can be very forgiving, allowing you to retain much of the colors and contrast information and fix errors after the fact. Shots that would be throwaways in other systems can come to life in post production.
Many people complain that micro 3/4 and aps-c dont perform well in low light. This is untrue. Theyre not the best and full frame would be a better option if that was your primary focus, but they can certainly perform more than adequately, so long as your subjects aren't mobile. Seeing as how the majority of night shots are largely quiet sunsets and cityscapes, it's just a case of taking a fast lens and increasing your exposure time. Look at this shot I just pulled off dpreview. Its an unprocessed out of camera jpeg. Does that line up with peoples assumptions about a micro 4/3? No, because the photographer knew how to get the most out of the system. That's what photography's about.
