Micro Four Thirds vs. Full Frame: The Truth No One Tells You

4 minutes read

Today wasn’t a day for a photography trip, so I spent some time browsing the internet and YouTube. I checked for new videos from Micro Four Nerds and came across a photographer from Connecticut who switched from full-frame Nikon to OM System (link below). In fact, I found several professionals making a living with Olympus, OM System, or Lumix.

Yet, there are still so many people who tear down the system—or even hate it. But if you truly hate something, doesn’t that mean you’re either burning with jealousy or too stubborn to admit your own misconceptions? That got me curious, so I decided to dig a little deeper.

There are a few reasons why some photographers dismiss Micro Four Thirds (MFT) in favor of full-frame or even express outright dislike for it. Most of these come down to misconceptions, personal biases, or specific use cases where full-frame does have advantages. Here’s a breakdown of the main reasons:

1. “Bigger sensor is always better” mentality

Many photographers assume that a larger sensor automatically means better image quality in all situations. While it’s true that full-frame sensors have advantages in dynamic range and low-light performance, MFT cameras have other benefits like size, weight, and depth of field control that are often overlooked.

2. Marketing and online echo chambers

The camera industry heavily markets full-frame as the “professional” standard, leading many to believe that anything smaller is inferior. This is reinforced by YouTubers and influencers who push full-frame cameras because they are trendy or because they receive sponsorships from manufacturers.

3. Misunderstanding of depth of field and equivalence

Some photographers believe that MFT cameras can’t achieve the same shallow depth of field as full-frame. While it’s true that MFT has a deeper depth of field at the same aperture, this can be an advantage for sharpness in wildlife, macro, and landscape photography. Plus, fast MFT lenses (like f/1.2 primes) can achieve similar background blur to f/2.4 on full-frame.

4. Noise performance bias

Full-frame cameras perform better in high ISO situations due to their larger photosites. However, modern MFT sensors have improved significantly, and noise reduction software has made low-light differences less of an issue. Many photographers focus on lab tests rather than real-world results.

5. They don’t actually use MFT cameras

A lot of criticism comes from photographers who have never used a high-end MFT camera like the OM-1 Mark II or GH6. They assume that because the sensor is smaller, the cameras are incapable of professional work. In reality, MFT is used in many professional fields, including sports, wildlife, and video production.

6. Gear elitism

Some photographers equate bigger and more expensive with better. Full-frame cameras are often pricier, and some people feel the need to justify their purchase by looking down on smaller formats. This is similar to how some people in the past dismissed APS-C when full-frame DSLRs became popular.

7. Changing priorities in photography

Not every photographer values size, weight, and portability. Many are studio or portrait shooters who don’t mind carrying heavy full-frame gear. For them, the advantages of MFT (smaller lenses, IBIS, computational features) don’t matter as much.

8. Ignoring real-world results

MFT cameras have been used by NatGeo photographers, filmmakers, and professionals in demanding conditions. The idea that they are “not good enough” is contradicted by actual results. Many photographers focus too much on specs instead of the final image.

Why Micro Four Thirds is Still a Great Choice

• Lighter & smaller: Perfect for travel, wildlife, and long shooting sessions.
• Faster burst speeds: MFT cameras often outperform full-frame in this area (like the OM-1 Mark II’s 120fps electronic shutter).
• Better stabilization: The best IBIS systems are found in MFT cameras.
• More reach for wildlife: A 300mm lens on MFT gives a 600mm equivalent, without the size/weight of a full-frame 600mm.
• Deep depth of field for sharp landscapes & macro: No need to stop down to f/11 to get everything in focus.

At the end of the day, camera choice should be based on what works best for your needs, not on internet opinions. What do you think—have you noticed this bias against MFT in your photography circles?

Link : https://youtu.be/bh0PRy4Wvvc?feature=shared

About the header – The image of the OM System OM-1 Mark II used on this site is copyrighted material owned by OM System. All rights remain with the original copyright holder. The image is used here for informational purposes only.