There is always a lot of comment on sensor size and format opinions.
Falling short technically is always on the mind of a photographer or videographer. Photography has always been an art form based on mitigating technical limits. Excessive noise, poor AF, poor stabilising, bad colour all threaten us, some sensors theoretically more than others, but there are so many other factors to consider.
This reality tends to form expectation habits of bigger = more = better. Gains made one way are often compromised in other ways.
First up, some clarification. A smaller sensor is a smaller complete sensor, not a “crop” of a bigger one. It is not a slice of cake, but a whole cake made to its own recipe.
I suppose the format of a camera is easily definable and logical to use as a measure, like the cylinders of a car engine, but just as misleading without context. Would you buy a truck to race a motorbike or expect that bike to pull a trailer?
The perspective that is rarely touched on though is balance of the overall offer. What does a system as a whole offer to counter any perceived short comings from its sensor base.
Like all things in life, it not a single element that determines the efficacy of a process, but the balance of all the relevant elements. Nothing works without balance.
A snap taken with a 150mm f1.8 equivalent. Not a lens to be carried lightly nor discreetly, but in m43 it is a relatively compact 75mm f1.8.
So, you have a smaller sensor than the “norm”. What is the flip side of that equation?
How do you achieve balance?
In M43 format the trick is in the lenses, which benefit most from the sensor size. Lenses in M43 are on the whole far cheaper and more easily designed and manufactured than their full frame brethren. A full frame 600 f4 is out of the reach of most of us, the province of professionals, people able to draw from a gear pool or specialists in a field and not a lens to be packed “just in case”.
The same reach and speed in a smaller format is a relatively achievable 300 f4, a lens that most brands make, but it’s role changes dramatically as does its place in the lens offering of its maker, so it is made to be a 600mm f4 for all intents and purposes. It is a flagship lens and is treated as such. This lens can be packed into a normal bag and used as a handy problem solver as well as its primary role.
So;
Longer effective lenses relative to the focal length that is printed on the barrel. Multiples of between 1.3x to 4x are all possible, when compared to the unofficial standard of “full” frame.
Faster longer (and sometimes shorter) lenses, which you can afford and can carry. A 75mm f1.8 acts as a 150mm f1.8 in the full frame format. This is not an illusion, not smoke and mirrors.
Easier lens design allows for better sharpness across the frame. You get used to this, but have to remember just how hard it is to make those super fast full frame lenses to the same level.
More depth of field at the same magnification and aperture, meaning you can get away with wider apertures with minimum depth of field.
Generally better close focus. My 9mm, 300mm, 25mm and 12-40 are all semi-macro lenses and the actual macros in the ranges go to 2x magnification easily and again cheaply.
The power of a 600mm, with all the benefits of a 300.
The swings.
You compromise the sensor size, something that I find more and more often is less of an issue than many assume and often not within needed parameters.
The round-abouts;
You get a bonus in most other ways.
ISO 12,800, cropped by over 50% and dealing with poor light colour. This file stands up well against a lot of full frame files I have seen recently in our and competitors papers. The very latest cameras and lenses make a difference, but at a premium and only at the very extreme end of things, and even then not by that much. The other culprit is possibly processing as most papers are locked into an Adobe only work flow.
The very top full frame or larger sensor cameras with the very best lenses are measurably superior to their smaller sensor equivalents. How much and does it actually matter is the question and also do you personally even have the luxury of choice.
In the real world, comparing a roughly equally priced OM-1 and 300 f4 vs a mid to upper end Canon/Sony/Nikon full frame camera and variable aperture super zoom* will give the win to the M43 offering. Only money, weight and size tip the quality scales in the full frame makers favour.
I can personally carry, comfortably, a kit of two pro grade cameras, lenses from 16-600 (full frame equivalent) in a regular camera bag and no lens is slower than f4. I also have the luxury of carrying several diminutive fast primes as well.
I have no fear of very low light, cropping heavily, high speed, slow shutter fire hand holding any of the other nasties photography can throw up, I just tackle them differently than a full frame shooter.
So, are your images sharp and easily achieved? Are they clean and contrasty? Do they make you feel good? If you can honestly say yes to all these questions, then what are you worried about?
If not, then what is the problem and what are the solutions. Selling up and chasing another brand rarely nets satisfaction, so only go there if you must.
A friend at work has a 25 f1.2 Oly. This lens defies low light and shallow depth of field needs. It is only about the same size as a regular 50mm f1.4.
Travel well.
*Optionally a higher pixel count camera with the same lens and cropping to match produces similar results. Same-same.
**If full frame is “full”, then a four cylinder engine must be a “half engine” in comparison to a V8?