Are you one of those people who believes that you have to alter the f-stop on an APS or MFT camera to obtain the same DOF with the same lens as on a 35mm camera? If so, I would really be interested in knowing your reasons for that belief. Or, if you don't believe that, what is the meaning of your closing sentences? In what circumstance(s) should I do that thing with the aperture and ISO?

It seems that I am going to have to keep reposting this image until you delusory minded folks get it, or at least back off in your deceptions/confusion regarding weight comparisons between MFT and DSLRs/FFM ("Full-Frame Mirrorless"). The only leg you have to stand on is that a high-end micro four-thirds camera BODY might be close in weight to the latest miniaturized FF cameras (Sony, Nikon, Canon). I'll give you that, but I won't let you get away with ignoring the massive difference in the weight of "equivalent" lenses. I hear that "weight saving not significant" nonsense over and over whenever anyone asks a question regarding comparisons of MFT and DSLR/FFMs That is just as lame and untrue as the derogatory commentary regarding EVFs, IQ, etc.

Check out the lens weights in the image - the combined weight of the Canon and its lens is MORE THAN DOUBLE the MFT combo!

Image borrowed from Mike Johnson's blog - check it out:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2018/09/the-biggest-smallest-reason-to-go-micro-43.html

Actually, you are actively seeing through the lens! The image you see comes from the imaging sensor, and, of course, the sensor gets its image “through the lens”!

Well - how do you explain this - trick photography? http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2018/09/the-biggest-smallest-reason-to-go-micro-43.html

The grip on my Fuji X-T2 is a godsend to me - mostly when I am shooting performance video, which I do quite a lot of. The three most important factors that come to mind are:

#1 - The first and most important factor for me is that the grip allows me to solidly grab both sides of the camera and with my elbows in and the viewfinder mashed into my eye, I have a solid platform to record several nearly continuous hours of video (or stills) without wilting and wobbling. This alone would have justified the high cost of the grip even if it didn't provide extra batteries!

#2 - How the batteries are discharged - both batteries in the grip are used up before switching to the single main battery in the camera body. I have yet to have that happen, so I have altogether avoided the possibility of overheating the camera when recording 4K content. When I first got the camera, I purposely ran the camera battery down while filming without the grip. The camera body got appreciably warmer than it does with the grip. The camera still performed flawlessly, but I like the idea that the camera probably has a higher life expectancy with the grip if a lot of video is being recorded.

#3 - Getting those hours of recording without having to swap batteries - with plenty in reserve. There also is a Boost switch on the grip which, when on, makes most operations a little quicker.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

Bah! Lightroom's horrid UI drove me to convert to MAC so I could use Aperture instead. I am now a fan of ACDsee, which IMHO does a DAM right. Bridge isn't half-bad either, but I had to divorce Adobe after they switched to the SAS (rental software) model.

Two misstatements that could have applied to EVFs a few years ago, but certainly do not apply to today's high-end mirrorless cameras. Every time the discussions re EVF vs OVF come up in this in and other forums, there always have to be a few disgruntled luddites that persist in bashing EVFs who are either clueless or are deliberately presenting "facts" that have no basis in reality. As my Granny used to say to her sometimes prevaricating grandkids - "you are full of prunes".

Try This: Press and hold the ISO button and turn the front dial while looking at the lower right corner of the top LCD - you should see the Auto ISO toggling on and off as you turn the wheel.

Unfortunately, when you cropped your FF to get that "reach" you have also magnified the noise and other image issues, shrunk the depth of field, and reduced the pixels in the image by 60%! So where is the FF advantage now?

My mirrorless cameras - Fuji & Panasonic - keep the aperture wide open until shutter release just like an SLR - the cameras adjust finder brightness according to aperture and shutter adjustments to make the WYSIWYG work. The Fuji’s also have a depth of field scale across the bottom of the finder image that responds to aperture changes.

That "Employer Contribution" is money that could be paid to the employee if it didn't go to the black hole of government. If you are self-employed, that "contribution" is paid by you anyway. So, I don't see any real advantage for the employee. You sound like a disgruntled employer that hates the very idea of sharing the profits with the lowly worker bees.

It doesn't have a mirror, but it does have a really craptastic optical viewfinder. And it has a tiny point-and-shoot sensor with crummy low-light performance to go with the crummy OVF. There are a bunch of better choices if you are in the market for a big-pocket fixed-zoom compact camera.

Here are a selection of 10 - http://cameradecision.com/alternatives/Canon-PowerShot-G16 They are all small sensor cameras, and all suffer the poor low light noise problem, but at least the ones that have eye-level viewfinders have Electronic finders that are vastly superior to the optical finder in the G16.

Personally, I wouldn't have any of these tiny sensor compacts, when there are a bunch of 1" sensor compacts that have much better image quality - My favorite in this category is the Panasonic Lumix ZS-100. That is what I bought to replace my old tiny sensor Nikon compact when it died.

Micro 4/3 cameras allow you to shoot a variety of formats, just like most of the rest of modern digital cameras. You can shoot "horizontal" 3:2 images like 35mm film cameras or DSLRs do or 16:9 "panoramics" too - that's REALLY "horizontal"!

A simple spacer/adaptor can take care of the legacy lens issue, just as it has for nearly all of the popular MILCs, assuming that Canikon have the good sense to design the new lens mounts to support it.

Another ridiculous comment from a clueless luddite!