Rather than re-hash the full frame vs M43 thing (again), I am going to look at it from the perspective of “natively shallow depth of field vs deep depth of field systems”.

I am a fan of M43 (no kidding), but I think that now, even after reacquiring a full frame (for video mostly, curiosity came a close second) and having the opportunity to use it for stills, I may be locked into an M43 work flow that I do not want to break.

The workable range is the key.

You are limited in aperture selection by the lens and the realities of photography. If you want deep depth of field and good quality it usually (still) means a lower ISO and slower shutter speed, which in turn relies on some type of stabilisation like a tripod or internal camera and/or lens stabilising or the movable feast that is lighting. If your subject is moving, then those options go out the window.

With M43 I get the same objective image quality at ISO 400 as a full frame camera gets (pixel count being roughly equal) at ISO 1600. The difference is, the M43 camera gives me the same depth of field or more at an aperture two stops wider open (say at f1.8 compared to 2.8-3.4 on a full frame), so those two stops are made back up by the lens.

The real difference in the field amounts to a system where you can always use any aperture on the lens safely.

Wide open at a relatively tame closest focusing distance, the 50mm S at f1.8 still separates easily. Too easily to be useful most often. If this was taken for artistic effect, then fine. If it was taken for a client wanting a shot for a catalogue, then a smaller aperture would have been needed and all the benefits of the bigger sensor go out the window.

Taken at ISO 3200 at 1/60th with a lower ISO, the stabiliser and smaller sensor dynamic in M43, and I know this from years of doing it, would have let me use f1.8 at ISO 800 and 1/15th or even slower or even f1.4 at ISO 400. Same difference mathematically except for two factors.

The first is more confidence the image would be sharp with M43.

The second is there is enough quality to do almost anything, so more is needed why?

There is no doubt there is room for shallow depth of field in photography. The image below, at f2 is nice, but not very informative. It is also fully achievable with M43, just shift the math.

But even at F5.6 from a flat perspective, the table is not fully sharp.

Models supplied by “The Horse”, my other mini-hobby.

Oddly to many older photographers who constantly fought against shallow depth of field, the real advantage of full frame is often cites as easily achieved shallow depth. The reality is it is on trend, but not often practical.

Look at the work of the best portraitists. They use the deepest they can get away with, only resting to very shallow for a specific look. No portfolio shots for the subject, just the photographer.