Originally posted by Tan68 I have difficulty reconciling the arguments between u4/3 to APS-C with the arguments between APS-C to FF. I think many members here would argue there are benefits to APS-C versus u4/3 If those benefits are accepted, how can there be arguments there are little to no benefits to FF v. APS-C?
The argument are the same and actuall there less theoretical difference between m4/3 and APSC than FF and APSC in term of crop ratio. But while there reason to not buy FF because of price, this doesn't apply to m4/3 that have similar priced bodies as APSC and lack of high performance cheap lenses (cheap tamron/sigma f/2.8 zoom as an example).
If we compare the max you can get for your money, you can buy a K50 + tamron 17-50 for 700€, getting a basic m4/3 + f/2.8 zoom will be more at least 1100-1200€ and that still will perform noticably worse despite being more than 50% more expensive. A D610 + 28-75 from tamron would be 1400-1500€ and that would be the best performing by far. While it is twice the price of APSC and that look like a big difference, it is almost the same price as m4/3 while being much much better because the difference between the 2 system cumulate as 2EV.
If we go further, we can see the best FF bodies for dynamic range get 14.8EV... And the best APSC body get 14.4EV... While the best m4/3 get 12.8EV. For some reason the m4/3 sensor does not manage the same as the other 2 in dynamic range and that show on occasions for landscapes or others critical scenes....
To me you buy APSC because it is cheap and a good price compromize. You buy m4/3 for size/weight and pay high money for it when you go outside of the kit lenses. And you buy FF for performance.
A non trivial difference is also the sensor ratio. Everybody may have different preference but overall counting most screens are now quite wide, m4/3 is not the best choice for full screen display...