06-08-2014, 03:00 AM
The statement in the topic title is the first sentence of Klaus' review of the Panasonic 12-32 lens.
- Is that really true? For me, at least, Micro Four Thirds (MFT) is the perfect balance between image quality and portability. Yes, one can make pretty small mirrorless bodies with APS-C or even full frame sensors, as Fujifilm and Sony demonstrate. Still, the main point is that for basic physical reasons, the lenses that need to be attached to these bodies have to be pretty large in any case, especially if one wants to get to some considerable zoom. The resulting "tiny body / huge lens" solutions feel quite unbalanced to me, and are often fairly slow as well (in terms of autofocus for instance). So when I want to have a big sensor, I rather go to a compact style but very capable DSLR like the Pentax K-3, which has great balance and ergonomics. Speaking about image quality, having used all those systems, I think that with nowadays technology there is no really obvious difference in image quality between full frame and APS-C in more than 95% of the cases (maybe except for if you like to make wall-sized magnifications). Between MFT and APS-C, I would say that in about 75% of the cases, there is no perceivable image quality loss. If one goes down to the next step, and compares APS-C with 1 inch sensor solutions like the ones from Nikon and Sony, then the amount of images where one can clearly perceive a loss in image quality is much larger. (Note: The above numbers are no scientific result, but subjective impressions from viewing many images on a standard full HD computer screen.)
So Klaus, in summary I do not really understand why the MFT system would be "in a bit vulnerable position these days". I believe it is in a very good compromise position between image quality and size/weight (plus also price). With sensors becoming better all the time, that position actually should become even stronger in the future.
- Is that really true? For me, at least, Micro Four Thirds (MFT) is the perfect balance between image quality and portability. Yes, one can make pretty small mirrorless bodies with APS-C or even full frame sensors, as Fujifilm and Sony demonstrate. Still, the main point is that for basic physical reasons, the lenses that need to be attached to these bodies have to be pretty large in any case, especially if one wants to get to some considerable zoom. The resulting "tiny body / huge lens" solutions feel quite unbalanced to me, and are often fairly slow as well (in terms of autofocus for instance). So when I want to have a big sensor, I rather go to a compact style but very capable DSLR like the Pentax K-3, which has great balance and ergonomics. Speaking about image quality, having used all those systems, I think that with nowadays technology there is no really obvious difference in image quality between full frame and APS-C in more than 95% of the cases (maybe except for if you like to make wall-sized magnifications). Between MFT and APS-C, I would say that in about 75% of the cases, there is no perceivable image quality loss. If one goes down to the next step, and compares APS-C with 1 inch sensor solutions like the ones from Nikon and Sony, then the amount of images where one can clearly perceive a loss in image quality is much larger. (Note: The above numbers are no scientific result, but subjective impressions from viewing many images on a standard full HD computer screen.)
So Klaus, in summary I do not really understand why the MFT system would be "in a bit vulnerable position these days". I believe it is in a very good compromise position between image quality and size/weight (plus also price). With sensors becoming better all the time, that position actually should become even stronger in the future.