I am always struck about the arguments about full frame cameras versus APC or M4/3. Which is better? The full frame shooters always put forward the notion that it is better because? Well perhaps in low light or noise handling. But the other side of the coin is interesting. If you are stood next to a FF camera user and you are using other formats, then you are at an advantage - if you are shooting Wildlife, at least. Both of you have say 20 mega pixel cameras. He has a long letter box shaped frame, and if you are using M4/3, then essentially a shorter letter boxed shaped frame, Yes? You have a bigger image than he has at the same focal length. Usually the first tool we used back on the computer is the crop tool. Inevitably, he will crop more of his frame because of the shape of the frame, and he wants to see a 'closer' image. Even if the images were the same size in the viewfinder, he will crop more than a smaller sensor format, because he has inherited the frame size from 35mm camera days gone by. He might end up with a image size that may be 8-10 m.pixels, where you may end up with 15 or more. Yes there are more photo sites on the sensor, because it is smaller, but noise reducing software has cancelled that out. The FF shooter probably uses noise software anyhow, because of the obsession with pixel-peeping that a lot of photographers have these days. I suspect that deep down, a lot of the critics of smaller sensor cameras are dare I say, a little jealous? After all, after shelling out anything up to 20k on camera gear, I would think twice about trading it in. However, they are missing the main point. Why carry all that big stuff about, and be rooted to the spot with a huge tripod and Gimball head and be immobile? It's like taking around a plate camera with a black hood a century or more ago. Now you wouldn't do that today, would you?