jimmya Loc: Phoenix

My opinion, yes size does matter. But as with most things it's not about the size but the photographer using it.

rebride

"My large DSLR is staying in my office as the OM-D provides the image quality and rapid handling that my work demands."
Pulitzer-Prize winner and National Geographic photographer, Jay Dickman

"I love the X-E1 [precursor to the X-E2]. I love how portable it is, and the lens quality is outstanding. But the picture is the big thing—the images are really strong. I'm amazed at how little I have to correct them on the computer. Usually I shoot in RAW, but these Fujifilm cameras produce amazing JPEGs straight out of the camera."
Jonathan Irish, program director for National Geographic Adventures and contributing photographer for National Geographic Traveler

Photographer David Alan Harvey even used one of these (Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7) surprisingly tiny cameras to capture many of the pictures featured in a recent National Geographic magazine story on North Carolina's Outer Banks.

"Now that Fujifilm and Sony have joined Olympus and Panasonic with similar options that have now matured into full featured, small cameras that don’t have to apologize for their performance, I would like to declare 2014 as the year of the mirrorless camera."
Senior photo editor for National Geographic Traveler, Dan Westergren

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

Yes, size does matter. I will not carry a huge camera, period. I've used a 4/3 format camera since I had a 4/3 quarter frame 110 film SLR in 1981, and I like what the new micro four thirds cameras can do. Plus adapters for almost every lens made, and you've got a photography hacker's dream.

wings42 Loc: San Diego, CA

I subscribe to bird photos from Richard Pavek who specializes in birds in flight in the SF Bay area. He recently switched from a Canon 60D (I use a Nikon D70) to an Olympus E-M1. I feel that the Canon photos were sharper and more noise-free. They had a crispness to them that the Olympus photos lack. You might check out his photo galleries and blog before you decide ( http://www.pbase.com/shenmaker and http://www.richardsbirdblog.com/ ). Especially compare his older photos to his newer ones. I intended to switch to the Olympus E-M1 until seeing the results this excellent photographer gets with it, surely better than I could.

The Nikon lenses are coming down in weight, with the newest 70-300 or 18-300 lenses weighing in at only 1 lb, 2 oz.. The new Nikon D3300 body weighs only 14 oz! The combo would be about 2 lbs. That's compared to my current D7000 + Nikon 70-300 lens weighing 3 lb, 8 oz. on my kitchen scale. So, I decided to stick with the larger DX sensor, the camera I love and spend my money on lighter lenses as they come out and prove themselves, and maybe switch to a lighter Nikon body if needed. I hope this helps.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

This is the most correct answer.....

RRS Loc: Not sure

That's a very nice set of shots! :thumbup:

BamaTexan Loc: Deep in the heart of Texas

:thumbup: :thumbup:

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Certainly if weight is a factor, a 4/3 system can be a determining factor. I see no other redeeming quality, including prices which in some cases are more than dslr models. That said, I think the 4/3 system is growing in popularity to the credit of mainly Olympus. Great products.

Kuzano

I'm starting to be inclined to say, it's the same as what we learned while waiting in line for the next great film camera that was going to take us from advanced hobbyist to professional.

GAS is only a means to endlessly justify and rationalize our next purchase, because we can't satisfy ourselves that we can reach our goals with the tools we now have in our hands.

The problem is just more confusing with digital. So, I am just going to go ahead and say it.

It's NEVER the sensor size, just as it was NEVER the next best film camera.

It's Always the photographer.

Case in point.

Have you seen the massive amount of work done by Daido Moriyama (Lots of YouTube videos on his work) with the estimable Point and Shoot... The Ricoh GR. Small sensor, big man in the art world. Now in his 70's he's still cranking out a lot of images.

He moved from the Ricoh GR, to a Nikon Coolpix (still P&S) and abandoned Nikon to go back to the Ricoh.

It's ALWAYs the photographer. Never the size of his tool. Same can be said for an accomplished Gigolo.

In art, more fine art of quality has been created with a fine sable brush with a half dozen hairs, than with a 6 inch paint brush. It's ALWAYS the artist.

One answer to your question may be if you actually isolated the advantages of a large sensor. I would propose that those advantages would apply to 5 to 10 percent of the tasks the sensor are asked to perform. A full frame sensor producing 24 to 36 megapixels is not going to always be better than the smaller sensor 100% of the time.

Your question has no totally correct answer. Only subjective responses from individual experience, but no overall Objectively Conclusive answer.

Might as well give it up, and go shooting. :lol:

Robeng Loc: California

Just came back from a lecture with the same tittle from "This Week in Photography." Google it. They covered mirrorless vs. DSLRs. Or check YouTube.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

The sensor in a micro 4/3 is larger (taller) than a crop sensor dSLR and has to be cropped down to 3:2 ratio to match dSLRs, so that comment doesn't pertain concerning a 4/3 format mirror-less.

It DOES pertain to all bridge models and point & shoots though.

Jackdoor Loc: Huddersfield, Yorkshire.

Just to avoid confusion, correct about the ratio, but APSC size crop sensors are still physically taller than micro 4/3, but not by much.

ThePhotogDog Loc: San Marcos, California

Hope this puts some "Light" on the subject!! Saves much argument. Would be interesting to see the pixel count comparisons in each of those sensors... by the touted manufacture specs and mapping!
:thumbup: :thumbup:

R/The PhotogDog

RobWagoner

You mean like the Nikon D600 to the D610 with the D600 being the "old" model.

I do have a D600 and am very happy with it and its new "anti" spotting mechanism Nikon inserted in the recall.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

This is curious because when I import Olympus .ORF RAW micro 4/3 files into LR or ACR the files are tall in their initial previews from the camera then software crops them and the height is reduce.