DSLR Full Frame v Mirrorless Cropframe: Are we ready to downsize?
A real professional, judging by the equipment. I took this image a couple of months ago with the Leica SL and the (relatively) tiny 35mm Zeiss f/1.4 Distagon that I reviewed this week. The occasion was the opening of a new mural under an Underground railway bridge in West London. The event attracted a surprisingly large number of visitors, all of whom were confined to a small area. So a large telephoto lens was perhaps not the best tool.
Admittedly, the Leica SL is no shrinking violet in the size stakes either, but my rig was considerably more modest with the Distagon in tow. This shot reminds me of the perennial problem of size versus performance. If you need a full-frame camera or, even, a medium format, the size of the lenses is the penalty you pay. The SL is no exception in this respect, given the size and weight of even the standard 24-90mm zoom. There is no overcoming the laws of physics, and that's one of the major reasons there has been such interest in crop-frame sensors.
Performance of micro four-thirds sensors, for instance, has improved dramatically over the past five years, with impressive advances in dynamic range and low-light capability. However, larger sensors have also forged ahead in performance and everything has moved along a notch or two. There is still a significant gap in results. But it's all a matter of horses for courses.
What do you think? Is it still worth humping a full-frame camera and a bag hefty zooms around with you? Or should we ditch all this gear and buy a G9 or an OM-D E-M1? Maybe we should all buy an RX100 and have done with it.....