Yeah. Armchair photographers fighting over cameras by looking at the specs and comparing photographs under a microscope. There’s a tradeoff here between making

Yeah. Armchair photographers fighting over cameras by looking at the specs and comparing photographs under a microscope. There’s a tradeoff here between making a small, portable, inexpensive camera that you want to carry with you, and making a bigger, clunky, expensive camera that takes high-quality pictures. Armchair photographers looking at the specs will always pick the bigger, more expensive equipment. I know some people that bought into the 4/3 system, and I personally bought into larger systems. At the time, maybe that made sense for me. But if the camera is smaller, you actually bring the damn camera with you and get a shot. The 4/3 is a beautiful compromise where the shots are probably going to be noticeably better than your phone, and you’re going to bring the camera a lot more often than the APS-C or full-frame cameras. The resolution differences are on a square-root scale when you count megapixels. 24 MP has 22% better resolution than 16 MP — √(24/16). There’s a whole complicated story here involving aperture size, optical resolution, sensor efficiency and all sorts of other factors, which means that in the end, you don’t sacrifice as much image quality as you expect when switching to a smaller camera.