[Brightcolours]

[quote name='dhazeghi' timestamp='1331647653' post='16661']

The better performance of the larger sensor is substantially negated by the need to use 2-stop higher ISO to achieve the same shutter speed for the same DoF.



Beyond that, there's the difference in body size. There are no general purpose (i.e. non-Leica) full-frame digital cameras that are anywhere near as compact as even the largest m4/3 camera.



DH

[/quote]

Exactly, that is the whole point. A full frame 135 format sensor, with equivalent lens and settings, is comparable to a 4/3rds size sensor with equivalent lens and settings.



So, while it is incorrect to say that somehow the 4/3rds can exploit the f2 ratio of the lens, as some poster did earlier in this thread, it is also incorrect to say that with equivalent lens and settings the FF camera has "better performance" noise wise.



That is of course, if we assume similar sensor technology. We all know that that is a separate discussion, and that sensors of a few generations ago perform less than sensors of more current generations.



However, a full frame 135 format camera does have two advantages. Because of the larger sensor, smaller DOF can be achieved when desired, there are lenses available with much larger apertures which combined with the wider angle of view do make a difference. The 2nd advantage is when there is enough light to use lower equivalent ISO settings. And to use lower ISO settings when one is looking for longer exposure times.

And, obviously, MFT has a size and weight advantage if desired, too. Not just the body, but as I pointed out earlier, for instance there are no 28-300mm f8-11 lenses for FF. Just an example that we talked about in this thread, there are many other examples one can give.