[thxbb12]

At the end of the day MFT is just a step up from digicams/phones whereas APS-C cameras are one step further.

And I'm sorry to say but the Fuji 16mp APS-C sensor is miles ahead of the MFT gang in my book - this is easily obvious during RAW processing.

Size-wise the Sony A6000 is as big/small as the Pana GX-7. And the Fuji X-T1 is actually smaller than the Olympus OM-D/Pana GH4.

As for the lenses - when comparing lenses of EQUIVALENT depth-of-field capabilities, there's no size difference across the board no matter whether you take a 1 Nikkor system or medium format (plus/minus a little). e.g. Take the Olympus 12-40/2.8 vs the Zeiss/Sony 16-70/4. 

 

Don't misunderstand me - I really like MFT and I will also continue to use it for personally (beyond PZ) but regarding the competition especially from Fuji there'll be difficult times ahead. Or to phrase it differently - I either use the Pana GM1 or Fuji X-T1 whereas my GH3 is collecting dust (and IQ-wise the GH3 is on par with the OM-D/GX-7).

 

I knew that this sentence in the review would cause some uneasy feelings but just like over at Sony I will not do any sugarcoating.

 

After having own cameras with the same generation sensors in FF (D800), APS-C (Pentax K-5) and MFT (Olympus E-M1), my conclusion is that the IQ gap is larger between APS-C and FF than between MFT and APS-C.

It actually mimics the sensor surface: MFT is 61% of APS-C which is 43% of FF.

 

I used to be obsessed with DOF, but even now I find that I get adequate DOF with MFT when using the right lenses (Pana 25mm at f1.4 or Oly 45 at f1.8) for the job. Most often than not, I don't need super crazy shallow DOF. Finally, I think MFT reached the good enough threshold since the E-M5. Whatever people say, I believe that the limiting factor today is the person operating the camera, not the sensor  :lol: