Sensor Size Discussions on DPReview

Any question or any call for advice on the forum of DPReview which involves different sensor sizes inevitably leads to several pages of discussion on equivalence and "full frame advantage". Here is an example. I did not want to write about these technical topics anymore. But I enjoyed that discussion and have read through the answers as much as I could stand it. So the following fits into the general theme of a photography diary.

I can tell you why I switched to full frame. Here are some of my reasons.

• I can afford it. If I couldn't, I would have stayed on APS-C. It is cheaper and just as good for everyday photography. If you decide for a camera system, you need to consider the price of the cameras plus the price of the lenses you need. Do not buy a full frame and restrict your lens choices just to have that sensor size! That is foolish.
• I came from Nikon DX DSLR and wanted to switch to mirrorless. My recent travel camera was the D7500. I always liked Nikon's cameras. The logical path from a Nikon DSLR is the Nikon Z line. At that time, the Nikon Z50 was already on the market. But the camera and the available lenses did not attract me, mainly due to the missing IBIS, prime lenses and the inferior EVF. So I went for the Nikon Z5.
• I knew about the advantages of a larger sensor. I had a Panasonic MFT camera, the GX85. The restrictions in lower light could not be neglected. As a travel photographer I often shoot indoors in lower light, and I also shoot portraits of kids in motion. Yes, there are equivalent settings, like F4 on MFT and F8 on Full Frame. But I wanted to shoot wide open to isolate subjects. And even the 25mm f/1.7 MFT lens from Panasonic is no match for the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8, neither in terms of noise or in terms of sharpness.
• The Nikon Z full frame lenses attracted me. Even the "kit lens" 24-70 f/4 is a marvel. It is my main workhorse besides the 50mm f/1.8. I also have the 105mm MC and the 70-180 f/2.8, both excellent for the purpose. For light walking, the 40mm f/2 or the 28mm f/2.8 are also available. Those lenses are not even the top lenses of the Nikon Z line. But they surpass visibly anything I used on APS-C or MFT. See below, however, on my judgement if this is really what counts in photography.
• I compared my options in the APS-C line. There was the Fuji XT4. I rented it for a week, but did not like the handling, and I have no use for their "film emulations". I use RAW. Moreover, it was more expensive than the Z5. The Fuji XS2 failed my test of the EVF, something that I looked for carefully coming from optical viewfinders. The Sony A6xxx line failed my handling test. The Nikons were so much better. Canon did not have any good choice besides the cheap consumer models.

I understand that there are good reasons not to go for full frame.

• In real life, photographic ideas, technique, location and composition count much more than the camera or lens you use. If a picture is too difficult or even impossible, it is usually the light or the situation, not the camera.
• There are special areas where even MFT has an advantage. E.g., the new Olympus cameras feature a very quick focus stacking, making it ideal for macro photography. Another example is birding, where the full frame lenses are bulky and expensive like a car.
• You may not want to spend too much money on photography, and more on things like travelling or dining. That is okay. In this case, APS-C is the right choice. You can get a very good everyday camera system for around 1000€. A full frame camera will cost you twice or three times that much.
• If you are not truly involved in photography, your heavy equipment will collect dust on the shelf. In this case, it is better to go lighter. My suggestion is the Nikon Z30 with the 16-50 DX VR lens. It will give you more than enough quality. And there is a good chance that you carry it with you.

By the way, the picture at the start was shot with a point-and-shoot Pentax camera. The one below is from MFT, the GX85 with the 40mm macro.