Something I like to talk about is the quality of the M43 format.

Something I hate dwelling on is the quality of M43 format.

Here is the reality. I do a lot of work for a lot of different people. The thing that keeps coming up is the quality of my work. Sharp lenses, clean and brilliant files, accuracy, speed, consistency.

None of these are an accident.

The format has a single technical negative, which is the mathematical reality of (all things being equal), higher visual noise at the same high ISO settings as a full frame camera. Nothing else is insurmountable and some of the negatives are for some people positives (more depth of field).

However, being one quarter the size of the full frame, does not mean one quarter the quality or four times the problems. In direct comparison to the other two experienced pro shooters at the paper, I have beaten the older D750’s and lenses for noise, sharpness and overall performance and even against the Z9’s (with older slr lenses) hold my own. I am not even using the latest offerings from M43.

The thing is, you have to be ok with the format. No amount of convincing will be enough if down deep, you are convinced that full frame offers more in a way that actually matters.

A Ferrari can theoretically go faster than a Lexus, but often cannot in the real world. There is always a mitigating factor that will stop the faster car meaning anything and in turn expose its short comings like fuel economy, repair cost, cost of running and impractical everyday design.

At the end of the day, the only way most of us can actually see our superior quality is at 1-400% on a computer screen, a medium almost nobody else uses or cares about.

I use the format because early on, it gave me more and faster and at quality was at least as good as my Canon full frame cameras (5D mk3). They were eminently portable and had better lenses across the board (even comparing L glass). Much of this has been upgraded, especially the newest lenses, but at great cost and they are still huge.