Why I switched from Panasonic Lumix micro 4/3s to Sony Alpha Full Frame mirrorless.
Phone or Camera
In March 2025 I shot my Granddaughter's first birthday entirely on my iPhone. The image quality is nearly identical to my m43 system in good light, and it was a full blown daylight (got a nice tan in the process). I could even shoot RAW and get DNGs to edit in Lightroom if I want. Of course there is no match when you need more reach, or shoot in lower light, but for a regular daytime photo shoot, there was no point in lugging around a camera body and multiple lenses, for almost no image quality gain.
In April 2025 I decided it was time to start moving into a system that will provide more flexibility, improved support, research and development, and also widely available for resale. So the Sony Alpha system made a lot of sense. For far too long I've been researching the system, only to get disappointed every time I looked at the price, size, and weight. Until I saw this kit which completely changed my mind.
Equivalent lenses, MFT versions are f:2.8, and Sony Alpha are f:4, but are equivalent in depth of field rendering. Besides, the extra stop is very well handled as the Sony full frame sensor manages noise at high ISOs surprisingly well.
Thoughts of Change
My thought process swarmed around my head, and began looking into different options. Sony clearly won, so started selling most of my old gear, and get the A7R IV plus 3 lenses and a Teleconverter. It can easily cover from 20mm up to 420mm.
I would have gone for the A7R V, although I'm not ready to spend that kind of money on a camera until I start getting paid jobs. Besides the V has exactly the same sensor as the IV, so image quality will be almost the same. It has an improved EVF, AI assited AF and better IBIS, but I think I can survive with the IV for a couple years. By that time, the VI should have been released, and the price of used Mark V should have gone down considerably.
This comparison is more balanced, as the OM Systems lenses are of similar quality, and while the 40-150 will render a 80-300 equivalent field of view at 20 Megapixels, the Sony 70-200 can reach up to 280mm using APS-C mode, and still render a 26 Megapixel file.
The 61 Megapixel sensor provides room for cropping, and still get a usable image. It has an APS-C mode, which I configured to a function button. I just press it and it multiplies the field of view 1.5 times, still getting a 26 Megapixel file, which is more that what any MFT body can provide.
In APS-C mode, my 70-200mm will become a 90-280mm, still f:4, and if I add the 1.4X teleconverter, I can get to up to 420mm at f:5.6.
Did the Kit grew or shrunk?
My fear about Full Frame was the cost, size and weight of the kit. Not so much the camera body, as is similar, and even smaller than flagship micro 4/3s bodies, but the lenses. Specially the longer ones. And while they are indeed bigger, heavier and considerably more expensive than MFT equivalents, you can now find way smaller and lighter lenses. The 20-70mm + 70-200mm combo is a match made in heaven. They even share the same filter size, and constant aperture.
So, my former kit was:
G9/G95/GX9
12-35mm f:2.8
8-18mm f:2.8-4
12-60 f:2.8-4 (for single lens travel)
12-60 f:4-5.6 (for light travel)
35-100mm f:2.8
9mm f:1.7
15mm f:1.7
25mm f:1.4
45-200mm f:4-5.6
Basically 6 zooms, 3 primes, and 3 camera bodies. Impossible to carry all on a trip. I had to decide what I “expected” to see while away. Most of the time I missed leaving one of the lenses at home.
This kit covered from 16mm to 400mm at 20 Megapixels.
My new Sony kit is:
Sony A7R IV
20-70mm f:4
70-200mm f:4
35mm f:2.8
1.4X TC
That's it. One body, one prime, two zooms and a teleconverter covering from 20mm to 420mm. 4mm shy on the wide end, and 20mm more reach compared with the MFT kit.
Contrary to all my expectations, my kit shrunk. Considerably.
The reality of Depth of Field
I remember on my film days playing with aperture to control Depth of Field, or the distance between the closest and farthest object that is still in focus. With Micro 4/3 I don't remember even considering Aperture, and I kind of forgot about it. In reality since I got my first APS-C camera back in 2005.
After 13 years with MFT, and just a couple of days ago I really understood why I was either:
a) Shooting wide open all the time, avoiding the ISO to go too high or
b) Not stopping down above f/8, for the risk of diffraction
Doing some math I realized that my most cherished lenses, the 12-35mm and 35-100mm, both f/2.8 in reality rendered the Depth of Field of an f/5.6 lens in Full Frame terms.
Not that glamorous anymore, are they?
Eureka moment
AHA!!!
So that's why my shots were so sharp all the time!. My goodness, these lenses are amazing — I though… And they are, but it was not the lens, it was the depth of field. Everything was tack sharp because I could still miss focus, the subject fell within the wide DOF.
Full Frame is nowhere near as forgiving.
But wait!
I'm not ranting against micro 4/3s. Far from it. I've been using the system for well over 13 years, so my issue with aperture and depth of field is completely my fault. I realize that MFT have a huge advantage when you need long reach and wide depth of field. That's the main reason why it is so popular to the wildlife and BIF (Birds in flight) photographers. Since I'm neither, logic dictates I have been using the wrong format. But I'm not complaining. I loved MFT, and still do and hope for the best, but sadly looking at the latest releases I'm not confident that at least Panasonic is still committed to the format. I know OM Systems have no choice, so they will dedicate all their R&D to the wildlife/bif genre. Understandable.
Nikon FE, circa 1977
3:2 a familiar aspect ratio
The final reasoning why Full Frame makes sense to me is that it feels like home.
Way back in September 1977 my brother bought me my first SLR. A Nikon FE. I used Nikon ever since, up to the mighty F100 which I loved with all my heart. Most comfortable camera I have ever owned.
The 3:2 aspect ratio is wider than 4:3, so is less "boxy”. I find myself sometimes cropping 4:3 into 3:2. I find it more aesthetically pleasing than 4:3. Suits better my preferred subject: Landscape. My Granddaughter is close 2nd. But very close.
Jobo UniTank
A Family Tradition
I shot Slide film almost exclusively for almost 30 years. I even owned a darkroom at home, printed and developed reversal film, even did Cybachrome, amazing media.
On later days, our typical weekend was to go out on a Saturday with the family, to an interesting place around the city, or maybe to the beach, with my camera and a couple rolls of slide film. Then Sunday afternoon, after lunch, I turned on the JOBO development tank system to bring it to the right temperature. Cracked open the cartridges in a light proof bag, and fed the film into the reels of a JOBO UniTank. Started the development process: first developer, reversal, color developer, bleach, wash and stabilizer. I still remember the scent of E-6 chemicals.
Kodak Carousel
After drying and cutting the strips of film I mounted them on slide frames. Loaded the slides into a Kodak Carrousel, and at dawn, it was family time to watch the 72 photos I captured over the weekend. We used to live in a country house, with no Cable or Internet, so it was so relaxing and amazingly fulfilling to sit down for a few minutes and enjoy "the catch of the weekend” with the family.
It might be the reason why I miss the 3:2 aspect ratio of the 35mm frame so much.
The Death of a Legacy
In 2002 my F100 died with an Err in the screen, and no way to repair it. So I stopped photography for good. It was my last SLR. In 2005 I got my first DSLR, the first Canon Digital Rebel. Basically the only “affordable” DSLR at that time.