Has anyone else noticed that almost all FF (meaning 36x24mm) haters/knockers are owners of formats without any FF cameras? There used to be a ton from the Nikon camp before the D3 was announced/released. But they have all turned on their collective heel and now all wish they could afford a D3, with the equal rez D300 a very distant 2nd in their estimation.
Almost all the threads I see about how much of a waste FF is, how it is a dinosaur relic from a bygone age, how the corners are 'cr@p, mush, and dismal', how the format was just an arbitrary size and is/was never any kind of holy grail and should be abandoned for a brighter, smaller future, all now seem to be coming from the Olympus camp. Every week I have a browze here, and see more of the same, usually with 'Olympus SLR talk' under them. I think there are some serious cases of 'small sensor insecurity' over there.
There is nothing wrong with smaller sensor formats! They are what they are, they have different strengths and advantages, just as 135 format does. APS-C is a great middle ground as well, also with it's own strengths/weaknesses. You do not need to slam other formats in order to justify your own purchase decision. Are you happy with your prints? Then who cares what anyone else uses? I don't see ANY threads stating the MF digital backs are an absurd waste of time and offer no advantages... why? Why the bug in the @ss with FF? We don't actually think you are hung like gerbils just because you shoot 4/3. I would but an E3 tomorrow for macro if I could afford it, but I can't, and it doesn't actually matter anyway. Get over it.
--
All matter is energy condensed to a slower vibration,
And we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.
Death is an illusion,
Life is a dream,
And we are the imagination of ourselves.

Be here now.