[JJ_SO]

My point was actually along the lines of you have to stop down a bit on large aperture lenses to get sharpness across the frame, thus removing some of the advantages of a larger sensor.

 

Not every picture needs "sharpness across the frame" - a main reason to spend that money on a fast lens is to isolate a subject against the "rest". If you have sharpness across the frame, you don't isolate and treat each item equally. So it's more the question "do I really need fast and heavy glass or am I happier with more DoF?" Of course, I always can stop down a f/1.4 lens but I can't step up a f/2.8. And even the f/2.8 are best at two f-stops stopped down. It might be prejudice, but most good and modern f/1.4 are better at f/2.8 than f/2.8 lenses wide open. There's a lot of exceptions to this statement...

 

MFT largest problem is its compared against slower speed lenses from larger formats. In this respect is looks pretty bad value wise.

 

To me, APS-C is a good way to go. I don't see so much weight or size reduction for APS-C ILC to μ4/3. Also, to me it becomes less attractive to have a body which is difficult to use because every button is so small and all are densely packed on a tiny body. Leaving not much space for an average European thumb.

 

I think really you have to decide what size camera your willing to carry and what resolution is required. I think this new panaleica looks great; the 25mm 1.4 produces really nice images, so if it can follow along the same lines it should be good.

I agree, I just think, the smaller the device and it's lenses is, the tighter the tolerances have to be. Because at wider apertures each μm counts and makes a difference between centerred and decenterred lenses.