Thom Hogan - chwalący od lat Nikona, przechodzi z cropowych Nikonów na micro43:

Thom Hogan's Nikon Camera, DSLR, Lens, Flash, and Book site


"So if I go m4/3 (or NEX, NX, or XF), what do I lose? Lots of weight and size, even over DX. I lose good continuous autofocus, which has some impact on wildlife and sports, maybe on event photography (not really true with my style of event photography). I lose some macro flexibility, at least at the moment. I might lose almost a stop of high ISO capability with m4/3 (none with NEX, NX, or XF).

What do I gain? With m4/3 (and increasingly with NEX) a lot of interesting, small, highly competent lenses, for one. Many exactly what I want (still no tilt/shift, though ;~). A kit that I can easily carry on the longest hikes in the toughest terrain that I can contemplate. Strangely, more precise focus, obtained more easily (though not always as fast as my DSLRs). Real-time histograms, in the viewfinder, plus lots of other small things. "

(...)

"The FX kit clearly delivers a lot, but at a big price, and at a very large size and weight. The question is whether going all the way down to the m4/3 kit loses me much over the DX option. As I write this today: no. If anything, the DX lens choices hamper me. While the D7000 body delivers perhaps a stop difference in image quality (DxOmark says more like two-thirds of a stop), my lens choices sometimes grab that back. On DX the best I can shoot at 24mm equivalent is f/2.8 (and with the Tokina 11-16mm); on m4/3 at f/2, for example."


Wydaje się że cropowe lustrzanki nie mają już sensu.
Thomas wybiera micro4/3 plus ewentualnie drogi FF.
Biorąc pod uwagę to co daje kompakt RX100 z 1-calową matrycą w prównaniu do APS-C Canona - tym bardziej nie ma sensu dźwigać.