Would I Benefit By Changing From Micro Four Thirds To Full Frame? 

I own both an Olympus E-PL8 and a Sony A7. And it is exactly what you say, both systems have their strong points. If you make a list, it appears as if MFT comes out ahead. But photography isn't about lists. For me, it is about enjoyment and capturing lovely images. And both these systems offer that in different ways. I find that the main benefit of full frame is indeed the FOV: being able to use fast (vintage) glass in small spaces. This is an easily underestimated benefit. Something like an Olympus 75mm f1.8 is a great lens with terrific image quality and a bokeh monster, but often it is just not versatile enough to use. I love using something like a vintage 50mm on my A7. Great for indoor portraiture. About cost: I bought my Sony A7, secondhand for 250 Euro. Don't remember exactly what I paid for my SMC Takumar 50mm F1.4, something like 30 bucks. So, shooting full frame doesn't have to be expensive at all. When it comes to camera systems, I am an opportunistic hedonist.

‘Whatever works for you’, as you quite rightly say. No one should ever listen to anyone who says ‘you must do this’ or ‘you should do that’. Please, don’t be a sheep, go your own way and decide what you need and what works best for you. We all have different needs and skill levels. Thank you for your post.

so many choices these days and the thing is, they all produce good images. I myself started with Nikon aps-c and while attending photography college I upgraded to a full frame dslr nikon. Still using it for projects where I can make use of the lenses I have for that system. But in all honesty, these days, all I carry with me everyday is an Olympus em5....it brings me so much joy, it's all that I need for every day and the images are as good as my full frame with the right lenses if you don't pixel peep ... .and I don't... :)

Another great thing about M43 is that it's discreet, especially if you do street-photography. Your camera doesn't draw attention, people hardly notice it. And you can easily "shoot from the hip"...

I have shot with mft, crop, FF and medium format. Every format has their pros and cons. Whatever works for you is what you should use. I have to crop my photos quite a bit so 20 mp sensor just wont cut it. Another thing is that Olympus autofocus isn't on par with the the best ones (Canon and Sony) when I write this (October 2023) I love Olympus camera looks, size, weight, controls, live comp and color science. If those two things I mentioned earlier were different, I would still use Olympus (I owned E-M1 mark II and several lenses for some time in the past) Nothing against mft but at the moment it just isn't format for me because of those two "limitations".

Not sure you have to renounce one to have the other... I have always had multiple formats even back in the film days (I am 70+ yrs young)... nowdays its eosRP set and also some GX9 gear for run and gun... Cheers If I need really low light I use an old Sony A7s...

For hobby, street and travel photography I love my little E-M5 with a standard or a wide angled prime. It has a Rangefinder vibe for sure. For the occasional bit of paid work, I just rent or borrow whatever I need for the shot list. That tends to be Sony, but Panasonic is very much available rental here: thinking of hiring a GH5 II for a job in a couple of weeks.

I was a Canon shooter back in the days of the A1. The last camera I had was a Pentacon 6TL. So when I picked up a Canon 6d 2015 model this year it was like going into the future, but with a familiar layout. I picked the 6d for its tank like build, familiar layout and relatively wide range of cheaper ef lens. I never had a touch screen or image stabilization before so why bother now. I'm happy. Maybe you should rent a full frame before you make your mind up, instead of being in a 'what if' situation later.

yes, you would. I used to shoot 4/3 but gave that up a long time ago for APSC and FF and have never looked back.

I concur with all you said . If an iPhone can produce a poster as big as those i have seen on station platforms , MFT can certainly match it and in my opinion enhance the process over using a phone . After suffering from using larger bodies and lenses over the years and not giving a thought to the weight I was carrying around with me on trips all came to grinding haunt after a family trip around Europe . I elected to look for an alternative body and kit and after much procrastination , bought one of the last EM 10 kits from Olympus and had it shipped over to me in the UK. After adding a couple of primes as walk about and portrait work ; leaving my phone for wide angle vistas etc. In short , I have not regretted the move away from full frame and as attractive as the new Nikon body is , it is not enough to lure me away from MFT . In a word - weight and size . Okay , that’s two words lol

In the old days with film, I used Canon SLRs and Mamiya RB-67 MF. That Mamiya was in 6x7, so had about 6x the film area relative to the small format 135 ("35mm") film. 135 prints falls apart past 8x10 prints; prints from the MF negative enlarged to 16x20 remained tack sharp, maintained rich color and tonality, and was still mostly noiseless. The Mamiya was also break-your-back heavy, slow to use and damned clunky. A field kit with lenses, a handful of film backs, tripod would be easily 60 pounds. Now, I use a bunch of Panasonic MFT cameras and a S1R, which is FF. It's really no different than the old days otherwise. You can't argue against the spectacularly detailed 200MP, 60x40 poster print of macro, architecture and landscapes. The technical quality of the output is frankly unapproachable with MFT; it's also way overkill 98% of the time. I daily carry a GX-85 MFT with a 17mm f1.8 lens. It's fair to say I have 100 keeper images from this for every one out of the S1R.

I have to say that this is a fascinating video to me - partly because I am wondering if I should trim my full frame kit down and put more effort into micro four thirds - spoilers - yes. I love Olympus just like yourself, but I also love Pentax and my full frame beauty it the K-1. I will be honest, my biggest draw was the vintage lens support. I will say the following. That camera has made me happy. I love its image quality, its colour science and image stabilisation (Pentax is really good at this). I will also add that despite the ability to get nice shallow depth of field from micro four thirds, it is ridiculously easy on full frame and when you want great swirly bokeh, there really is no comparison. For landscapes I have found the the K-1 has also spoiled me for the level of detail. But... it is big! I find that in my daily life, it often sits at home unused, because even my OM-D E-M1 with battery grip and pro lens is still a lot smaller than the K-1 with a smaller equivalent lens and no grip. As a result if I had to go with only one system, I would choose micro four thirds. I think that it is more versatile and the pro lenses do make such a difference to the quality. Furthermore, I am going to move my fiancee onto the system and my Father has moved onto it a few months back, giving us as a family a common eco system. As it is, I plan on having both. I will use m4/3 as my main system and my K-1 for my special photo walks.

Wise words, mate. I love my Olympus cameras. I'm tempted by the Nikon zf though.

If you still have a set of manual focus lenses you could buy a canon Eos 5d full frame - with adapter you can use the m42, Pentax K or Nikon lenses. I paid equivalent 240 Dollar for my 5d. Good luck and have fun PS Robin Wong has interesting reviews on 5d and also Nikon 600

you could do what i do, and that's shoot with both m/43 and full frame (vintage lenses) and I get the best of both formats

Depends on ones reason to change to ff. Wide angle option? Bringing less lens as just only need to shoot & crop? But no point if mostly shooting tele ... Don't buy ff if you're planning to crop as that will be disadvantage

For me lenses are more important. Lenses dictate the body I have. I have 1 camera and 2 lenses.

The Micro Four Thirds have had a lot of unfavorable “labels” attached to them to justify the use of larger sensors. But rigorous reviews have been done and in “real life” (photos): 1. Noise, not only the size of the sensor intervenes, other factors also intervene and in the latest Micro Four Thirds models the difference is becoming smaller (and you have to go beyond ISO3200 to appreciate differences...). 2. Dynamic range, there are also more factors involved than the size of the sensor and the differences, in most situations, we will not appreciate (for example, in DXO Mark they assign a dynamic range of 13.4 steps to the OM System OM5 and 14.3 to the Nikon Z6 full frame 14.3, that is, not a step difference...🧐 therefore in a correctly exposed shot we will not see such a difference). In short, a bad reputation has been created from the 10 megapixel sensor era of the past and carries with it even now (due to the interest of the detractors of the system, which curiously was always open to all manufacturers...) But what about “Ecology”🤔 (which we like to boast about so much now) in the development of photography equipment: It is striking that at a time when we all want to be respectful of the environment, to be “ecological” (take care of nature), we do not take this into account in the world of photography. If we can reduce the cost of materials (optical glass, metal, plastics...) to build photographic equipment, with the consequent energy savings and less waste in the future...; It seems like it should be done and therefore manufacturers follow that path. But it seems that the majority of firms have not opted for this and want to reimpose the format of the past, which they now call "full format", when it is none other than the "classic" format or the traditional 24x36mm of the old support reel. chemical. But let's not fool ourselves, at this point it is clear that if we compare the results in the digital world of the "classic" format (24x36), with those of APS or Micro Four Tercios, in the vast majority of situations, there are no important differences in relation to the quality of the images obtained. But, there is a big difference when it comes to the cost of the equipment (body and objectives) and also the added weight (unhealthy for the person carrying it). Then a question arises: why are most companies so stubborn in designing a sensor with the “classic” 24x36mm “invented” in its day by Leica? I think the answer is quite obvious: these manufacturers (the old acquaintances and the one that once bought Minolta) want to continue taking advantage of their investment in optical designs from the past... (it does not seem that they are seeking to do the photographer a favor) . PS: Curiously, and ironically, Leica implemented the 24x36mm as a reduction of the chemical support format of the time (90x90 and 90x60cm) to achieve smaller, discreet and easy to transport camera bodies... And it represented a great revolution in photography " analog” as it has been a great revolution in digital photography to use smaller sensors than the old-fashioned 24x36mm...😬

I have shot APSC, 35 and now m4/3. 99% of my shooting is in daylight and I shoot street. I want plenty of dof, so M4/3 is my thing.

The reason I have picked a Full Frame camera is that I am sure that the manufacturer will support the system in the future. When I have switched from a DSLR, that broke :/, I looked at MFT but it was just when Olympus has carved out their camera business and Panasonic was not doing anything interesting. I feared, that MFT will be abandoned by Panasonic and OM Systems will go bankrupt rather quickly. In 2023, things look a bit different but 2 years ago, yeah...

I dont know why you are asking. Is there a situation that you need a sharper tool for? You wont really know unless you immerse yourself in another system. But...First golden rule is always to decide on the lens system you want to be in, then decide on the body.

Since Sony doesn't have a good track record for WR sealing on their bodies I wont be even thinking about them for my outdoors photography ... whereas Olympus is probably the industry leader with their OM-D M1 series build quality.

yes, yes it is

Might help you to keep fit.

MFT = Fun!!!

You should try the Zf. You will never go back. The Olympus auto focus sucks. Their IBIS is the best of the best. Their lenses are fantastic. Image quality of great if you get it right.

Yes, you need a full frame. Because no other camera takes a photo.

Don't know if Columbia sponsor you, but I've found that Merrell shoes are longer lasting 🙂 I am continuously amazed at people running around giving vendors free advertising. I like your photo content by the way!

Here is my current €1800 Camera Gear since 2018 composed of Fujifilm X-T1 + XF 35 f2, Lumix GX8 + Leica DG 25mm f1.4 + Leica DG 12-60 f2.8-4 and Leica T + Leica Elmarit-TL 18mm f2.8. + all accessories. These are all used but Mint Conditions. I used to own a Sony A7 III + Zeiss 24-70 f4 + Sony 50 f1.8 also all mint condition but ended up selling it. The happiness and inspiration I get from using Fujifilm X-T1, Lumix GX8 and Leica T is priceless even though these are 2014-2015 released cameras. Don't waste your money on Full Frame if you are not getting your money back. I made that mistake back in early 2018 and I am glad that I manage to sell it and build my current set-up. MFT is a different kind of gem paired with good lens, Fujifilm is for Film Recipes and the Leica T is for my ZEN type of photography.

i don't think dynamic range means what you think it means.

Debate about dynamic range? Where? Even mft churches don't have those.

As your the main demographic for MFT and you wax lyrical regards the system, then obviously you're not going to switch to FF.

No

Don’t waste your money

I shoot weddings on M43 never had a issue. Google . Russia wedding photographer Micro Four Thirds Now ask yourself can you use M43 for wedding photography?