Are FF better than M43 cameras?

Last updated:- 7th February 2026 (I added info about a powerful exposure technique)

The strange behavior of social media influencers repeating the same FF sales line while discussing M43 cameras reminded me of this young sailor showing his wife the fish he caught. She repeatedly thanked the fish for finding its way to the sailboat and presenting itself as their next meal. I couldn't help visualizing a talking fish, millions of years of nothing, and swimming to a sailboat to present itself as an almost Biblical meal. Considering the juicy sausage on my plate, I wondered if I should thank it for finding its way to my home. Imagine a world where camera manufacturers thought it was a good idea to turn a typical product sales line into an industry or "everyone agrees" standard.

If you thought the introduction was weird, let's discuss how a product weakness became an industry standard. Most will disagree when I say a shallow depth of field is a full-frame weakness. If not, why are we repeatedly reminded that everyone needs good subject separation, a creamy background blur, and a cinematic look? One has to appreciate marketers for turning a product weakness into a must-have feature. Despite the repetition, it was such a joy to experience the first episode of NCIS again, which was filmed with an old-style 35mm Panavision film camera and almost no creamy backgrounds. Whether technically good or bad, weirdness also suggests that everyone needs more dynamic range, more resolution, less noise, open gate 8K video, and AI-supported autofocusing.

Both images were taken with an older 4/3rds camera. The one on the right shows the impalas blending in with the environment.

While reviewing FF sales arguments and statements like "full-frame cameras are better" or "full-frame sensors capture more light," it shouldn't surprise photographers to learn that marketing physics are consistently biased. Did you know that reasonably accurate camera comparisons are almost impossible because as little as 0.1% of all digital camera comparisons passed the 90% equivalence threshold? It's almost impossible to trust any conclusions camera reviewers make on social media.

Equivalence suggests we should compare apples with apples. The test environment, tested products, and camera settings should be equivalent. Pixels capture photons and not the size of the plate they are mounted on. For example, compare cameras with similar pixel areas and types of sensors, like BSI with BSI CMOS sensors. Equivalence does not only apply to optical effects, like a DOF at f2.8 for M43 being f5.6 for FF cameras or a focal length of 12mm for M43 being 24mm for FF cameras.

Note: Equivalent optical effects are not the same as the exposure mix.

See this article and this article for more on the exposure mix.

Olympus E-M1 III with the M.Zuiko 12-45mm pro lens. ISO64, f6.3, 1/160 - This 50MP high-res RAW file was converted in Workspace.

Let's review some of the trends influencers like to avoid. For example, low-light photography is a tiny part of African wildlife photography, and higher ISOs are associated with wildlife photography because a constant DOF is critical at higher shutter speeds. That means 2X smaller equivalent apertures for FF and 2X higher ISOs (noise) than M43 cameras. It's concerning that influencers refuse to acknowledge the popularity and higher pricing of used compact cameras or how many people underestimate the increased processing and memory costs associated with 8K video or higher resolutions.

One could also question the declining demand for compact cameras or the notion that it's important for everyone to have a mobile phone. While reading, consider how a product sales line became a new industry standard. Modern photographers are basically boxed into one "optimum solution" with no reasonable alternatives for consumer preferences. As a final thought, how many can see a difference between 20MP and 50MP or use high-resolution cameras to increase the cropped reach of expensive FF lenses with smaller focal lengths? A full-frame camera with a reach of 300mm is not a good walkabout option for those using the M.Zuiko 40-150mm f4-5.6. It's also not necessary to crop with the 300mm equivalent reach and portability of an M.Zuiko 12-45mm and 40-150mm f4 Pro combo.

One of the critical aspects of designing new digital cameras is the tradeoffs manufacturers evaluate when creating the specifications of new cameras. For example, cameras without weather sealing are not designed for professional use, or Leica cameras with manual focusing appeal to traditional Leica photographers. Do you know that, similar to Leica, Olympus photographers benefit from a unique camera, M43 lens, Truepic image processing, and a post-processing solution?

Let's focus on 2 of the design criteria that impact the purchasing preferences of photographers They are best described as the optical and technical limitations of modern cameras. Optical characteristics are linked to the diameter of the sensor image circle. That means the size of the sensor determines the camera's optical character. Optical variables are DOF, the size of the lenses, and the two-times multiplier M43 photographers apply to find the 35mm equivalent of focal length and DOF.

The above illustration reminds me of marketers promoting the idea that larger sensors capture more light. The question is, how do we explain this "more light" theory? The first challenge is the fact that all sensor sizes receive the same reflected light or scene information at equivalent focal lengths. Secondly, evaluating the "more light" theory from the pixel's perspective, we know that pixels saturate when capturing and converting a designed or specified sample of photons into electrons.

We will probably never know why corporate marketers replaced a critical design criterion with "bigger is better" or "full-frame sensors capture more light." The result is inaccurate commercial claims, like the technical efficiency of electronic parts being measured by their physical size, or bigger sensors having more dynamic range and less image noise. It's also concerning to see unethical techniques like repetition and astroturfing being a part of modern social media marketing campaigns.

The first thing I do when familiarizing myself with a new camera is to visualize the meetings Olympus engineers had to finalize any technical tradeoffs in the design criteria of the camera. These tradeoffs reveal much about the designed application of a new camera. The optical design criteria of a camera are a given (sensor's image circle), whereas the technical design criteria always include tradeoffs. I added two examples for your information. Let me know if you'd like to see more.

Figure 1.

Here are two typical technical design criteria examples:

1. Speed versus Dynamic Range tradeoffs

Stacked versus a higher saturation point:

• Benefits:
• Faster readout speeds
• Reducing rolling shutter
• Allowing higher burst rates
• Better video performance
• Tradeoffs
• Increased read noise (more electronic components)
• Reduced full well capacity / Lower highlight retention
• Higher cost and power consumption (sensor temperatures)
• Complex & expensive manufacturing equipment, higher cost

Why:

• Faster readout electronics cause more noise
• Additional layers and routing reduce pixel area
• Complex electronics causes more heat and losses
• Pro level costs are higher than standard sensors

Application examples:

• Sports, wildlife, bird, video, and motorcar racing

E-M1 III with the M.Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens. ISO1600, f6.3, 1/160 - I converted this 20MP enhanced RAW file in Workspace.

2. Why plan a slightly lower dynamic range?

Benefits of accepting a lower DR:

• It improves readout speeds
• Reduce rolling shutter artifacts
• Ensure a more responsive Live View and EVF
• Better autofocus performance (faster sensor feedback)
• Lower power consumption and sensor temperatures
• Smaller and more manageable sensor data rates
• Better SNR's, or lower noise floor with less image noise

Practical considerations:

• Most scenes do not exceed the DR of modern sensors
• Photographers often expose to protect the highlights
• Most prefer speed & responsiveness over +1-stop of DR

One can do a similar example for digital cameras with higher and lower resolutions. I was studying the E-M1 II and the Sony A7RIV test results at DxOMark. They have similar pixel areas with interesting design criteria at 18% SNR and ISO200 dynamic range. A critical variable ignored by all reviewers is AST (absolute sensitivity threshold, Fig. 1), which gives us a better feel for the sensor's noise floor. Marketing "physics" has a history of suppressing the technical design criteria of cameras.

These examples explain why flagship cameras focus on usability and speed and why cameras like the E-M1 MKII/III or the E-M5 MKIII continue to be excellent options for 2026. It should also be clear why the "size and capture" theory can't explain the many tradeoffs when designing new digital cameras. It is therefore incorrect to say photography is better with FF cameras than with APS-C or M43 cameras. Social media influencers have no credible reason to continue repeating an oversimplified "industry standard" while reviewing or discussing M43 cameras on social media.

The E-M5 III (OM-5) with the M.Zuiko 12-45mm f4 pro, 17mm f1.8, and 75mm f1.8 lenses is an excellent day or low-light option.

A personal experience with M43 cameras changes everything. Full-frame marketers don't want that because sales are more important. For example, why should I buy an OM-5 II or the OM-3 if they have inferior image quality? It's almost normal for respected influencers to suggest that M43 cameras have inferior image quality. There are also several videos showing that the image quality of OM System high-resolution RAW files is softer than the same 40MP or higher FF images. Why would people think OM Workspace is inferior to the commercial RAW converters from Adobe or DxO? Shouldn't the logical alternative be to convert our high-res RAW files with OM Workspace or the TruePic X image processor, especially with the more advanced PC-RAW option of the OM-1 MKI/II and the OM-3?

This detailed 50MP handheld OM-3 high-resolution RAW file at f4.5 was converted with Workspace in PC-RAW mode.

Considering the ongoing social media conversation and forum comments, I can only conclude that OM System and Olympus failed to develop and communicate strong sales arguments for Micro Four-Thirds cameras. It's concerning that most photographers simply assume that M43 cameras have less dynamic range, more noise, and inferior image quality. The only benefit M43 cameras seem to have is smaller lenses. Don't you think it's weird to see one specific sensor format with so many inferior things? That excludes the poor lens quality, broken bottom plates, and other issues repeated on forums. Doesn't this weirdness remind us of a product weakness turning into a must-have feature? One can say much about the photography segment and modern marketing, or why social media influencers are asking, "What does the future of OM System look like in 2026?" after an encouraging year in 2025...

How would you define 10 unique sales arguments for M43 cameras?

Experimenting with the E-M1 III and the M.Zuiko 7-14mm f2.8 Pro lens - ISO800, f2.8, 1/30.

My slogan for 2026: Break away from the commercial marketing norm and rediscover the M43 format with Olympus and OM System cameras. One of the first steps in executing this goal is learning how to enjoy photography without the influence of social media opinions. Keep your OM-3 or the OM-5 on you and improve your photography by experimenting as often as possible. I use an older Brother printer to print my favorite shots for my photo wall. Printing adds another dimension to photography...

As a final thought, it became clear over the past 5 years that Panasonic is transitioning to a full-frame offer. Olympus made a difficult but strategic decision to transfer the imaging business to OM System. This decision and the past 5 years with OM System would be an interesting case study. Folks, I am not affiliated with or have had any contact with OM System. That said, reviewing the case study pointers I gathered, I do believe OM System will be an interesting brand to follow in 2026...

Additional information:

Do we need to replace the older analog exposure triangle with a digital version? Yes, we need a more accurate representation of digital cameras. The digital exposure triangle lets us manage the sensor's saturation separately from the ISO (image brightness). "Size and capture" or "ISO sensitivity" theories prevent us from considering technical aspects like saturation and SNR. Modern photographers use the digital exposure triangle and image-signal flow diagram to manage the optical and technical aspects of modern digital cameras. Analog and digital photography are technically very different.

Go to the Page Menu for the full article. Also, see this video repeating incorrect info.

Best

Siegfried