How often do I hear this, even from MFT lovers.
Always excuses, always a feeling of inadequacy, always a feeling of falling short and having to payback somehow for the formats short comings.
Smaller is apparently less. Tell that to a virus.
I have asked this before and I will again, is a turbo charged sports car less of a car than a monster truck or is it simply a better car for the role it plays?
Too big, is ironically a common complaint.
The EM1x cops a lot of hate (which suits me fine as it makes them cheap and easy to source), the G9II is “disappointingly” the same size as the S5 series, the G9.1 is “as big as an APS-C DSLR”. So what?
Ok, how big is an adult human hand?
How big is a professional lens in any format?
How small is too small?
The assumption seems to be, size of sensor and size of camera have to be a trade off. It seems if you are willing to “compromise” on your sensor size, then you have to do the same with your camera’s real estate.
A camera, sensor size excluded, has a “perfect’ size for most hands. Larger and smaller hands may dissagree, but even in the time of small 35mm film cameras, half frame and APS-C cams, they all fell within a range of comfortable to portable. People it seems, are still the same size.
I found the diminutive OM4Ti very comfortable in the hand, except when I used large lenses, which is when I added the motor grip. The T90 had one built in, so all good or bad I guess if you wanted pocketable.
The EM1x is perfectly balanced on any decently sized pro M43 lens (40-150 f2.8, 300 f4 etc). A camera any smaller is an issue, then adding a grip to a smaller camera, apart from adding cost, also adds redundant buttons and clutter.
The EM1x is spacious, relaxed, clean, all sealed up and uncluttered. The perfect professional handling dynamic. If you compare it to the cameras it was aimed at when released (for the stalled Tokyo Olympics), the Sony A1, Canon 1Dx and D6 Nikon cameras, it holds up very well, then the weight savings are found in half sized lenses.
The G9.II is the same size as the S5 series. About right regardless of sensor. Could it have been a little smaller and lighter? Yep, but not by much and why? Tiny little cameras are cute and great for tourists, but tend to have short runs.
Actually it is really great as I use both and do not have to stuff around changing rigging gear and handling “hats” when switching between the two. The G9.II ironically gains some useful buttons that the S5 lacks due to the larger mount, so you could argue by comparison, the S5/S5II’s are maybe too small and the looming S1H mk2 will prove that out.
The G9.I is simply the most comfortable and ergonomically balanced camera I have ever owned-period. It has a top screen, buttons for everything and fits my (and most other) hands perfectly (some of it’s biggest . Add in comprehensive customisation and tank-like build and you have a classic, a classic people seem to forgive its “oversized” footprint.
Smaller handed people have had to put up with over-sized cameras for most of their lives, but now apparently, just because the sensor is smaller, some cams are faulty by design.
The image quality thing is only a thing in the imaginations of the unaware.
The ISO thing is real, but balanced by lens design, speed and greater depth of field (that is more depth of field, which is a good thing sometimes), resolution handled for many situations by hi-res modes, stabe a cut above and more.
Even in video, MFT falls closer to S35 than full frame, which in Hollywood is a lot rarer than we often realise.
The image quality is good……. .
The “but” is a thing that really rankles and I am sick of thinking abut it, but still do unfortunately. A bigger sensor can offer better high ISO performance, but that is not the whole story. Lens options, extra DOF, better stabilising and less obvious movement blur all shorten the gap.
The bigger sensor and/or more pixels can theoretically provide better maximum potential image quality, but I am yet to reach a point where M43 cannot do the job.
Sharper? Clearer or “finer”?
People respond to the superior “quality” of some of my images, quality that sometimes steals the show, quality that instills confidence, provides legitimacy, heartens my soul. This quality is not “great with some caveat” , just great.
If you look at what makes a decent image, light, techniqiue, DOF selection, lens quality (and “qualities”), subject and composition are at the top of the list, what sensor size you use is not.
What is quality in an image? Is it pixel counting, Bkeh that blurs the background until it looks like a zoom blur screen, or the impulsive need to qualify the technical parameters? No, image quality is the response of the viewer to the subject, no more no less. Want to blow it up to fill a billboard? Mine have been, several times and cropped as well. The above imafg was a G9 Mk1, 12-40 f2.8.
This is partly me I hope, not the tools, but I am not held back or limited by the system any more than other system. I had and compared Fuji, even nearly mixed my systems (again), but a head to head proved to me nce again that M43 was it’s equal.
I have full frame, even newer full frame than the bulk of my M43, but only use it for video and even then I spend more time stressing the depth of field issues that it brings than celebrating the extra image quality.
A shot of the Prime Minister picked up by our largest ACM paper the Canberra Times, which is situated in the nations capitol where they have plenty of opportunities, so my M43 offering was obviously ok (EM1 Mk2, 40-150 f2.8).
The quality of lenses (easier to make for the format), their easy availability (double the length for the size/cost/speed), the added accuracy and depth of field provided by the format and the inherent quality of the sensors is plenty for any need, excessive usually. Sometimes it seems like haters are comparing a toy to the real thing, when really it is a 4 cyl sports car compared to an 8 cyl heavy hauler.
Faster, better, more efficient? No.
Different? Yes.
I have some full frame gear and I thought it may create a full frame shift, but to be honest, I often forget I have it and the extra bulk often limits it’s utility. I may get a lens like the well liked 24-105 S to add some versatility, but if I do, I am using a slow lens on a full frame sensor, so what is gained?
I would rather actually get the more than stellar 10-25 f1.7 MFT lens.
On lenses, the new Hope series from 7Artisans look good. $400au for a near perfect 25mm MFT cine lens? Yep, looks like a bargain.
So, I do like M43, so excuses, no exceptions.