It's a topic of constant debate amongst photographers: Is a full frame camera "better" than a smaller format?
As someone who has shot all sorts of interchangeable lens systems, from Micro Four Thirds to APS-C to full frame to medium format, I've seen the whole gamut of lenses and sensors for these systems, and after all of that, I honestly don't know the answer to that question.
Fortunately, there's someone who does, and explains it pretty well. Landscape and travel photographer Joe Howard of WaterfallJoe talks about his switch from full frame Nikon systems to OM System mirrorless cameras. In light of the release of the new OM-3, it's a good time to take a look at the pros and cons of going from a full-frame system to something smaller.
It's no secret that I've been a big fan of Micro Four Thirds, ever since Panasonic launched the svelte GF1. It's almost 10 years ago to the day I first wrote about how the format is a viable one for photojournalism. I've since ping-ponged back and forth. My original argument was that Panasonic packed a lot more video features into its GH series cameras. But since then Canon and Nikon caught up. Also since then, Sony became a real player in the industry. I went from loving Micro Four Thirds to declaring that you'd have to pull my full-frame DSLRs our of my cold, dead hands. Funny how that worked out.
These days I run a mix of Canon M-series APS-C cameras for personal work and full-frame R-series cameras for photojournalism. I couldn't really answer why, other than inertia.
But Howard offers a host of reasons why Micro Four Thirds has worked out for him, and would be a good choice, especially for landscape and travel photographers.
He makes the usual points about size, weight and cost savings that the smaller format system is known for, but one of the things that I didn't think about (that is a prominent physical control on the OM-3) is the computational photography modes built right into the camera. There's nothing more I hate than having to buy and carry all manner of ND filters for my lenses, or bother with a square filter system that takes a long time to set up. If I had the option for a live ND filter in the camera, I'd save a bunch of money and hassle on filters alone. That, coupled with the amazing image stabilization the system is known for (even on my bargain basement E-M10 series camera) and indeed that's a potent combination that can also even free you from carrying a tripod.
There's a lot to chew on in the video from Howard above. Take a look, and offer your thoughts on smaller format cameras in the comments below.
I get that m43 could be an option for my landscape photography. Somewhat smaller camera but much smaller lenses. But I also shoot concerts and events in low light and like the image quality my fullframe camera gives me. I don’t mind carrying filters. Got a ND filter in the size that fits the largest lens and use step up rings for the smaller lenses. I wouldn’t want to get rid my tripod, it makes me more precise in my compositions. So in short, just for my landscape photography I’m not buying into another system. And with a good backpack it’s no problem carrying my gear ( yet)