I don't disagree - I just find the Z 6's output cleaner and (apart from a tendency for warm or even hot WB) much more malleable at the pixel level; and subjectively, I find that the files have more depth and look somewhat crisper even at screen sizes. The difference is often negligible as far as the *possibility* for pleasing results at screen (or usual print) sizes goes, but the Z 6 gives me more compelling images more easily. On the whole, though, especially for someone who mostly publishes online, the difference is certainly way less decivisive than many in the industry try to make us believe. Although I'm sure I would see things differently if I were a working pro with needs for resolution (though there's only a handful of people who actually do wall-sized stuff).
As a system,
is mature and delivers the goods. The advantages, though tangible, of bigger sensors, while there, are something you have to want and to use in order to make that step worthwhile. I see the improvements for myself, and I do use shallow DoF a lot in my shots, so I'm better served with FF on the whole. But I do love the fact that I have a small, sturdy, high-performance combo that's basically 60% the weight and 70% the size of my smallest FF outfit *and* is more versatile (the E-M5 III with the 12-45mm PRO - the advantage is even more pronounced with longer lenses ...).
It's a shame that people believe in "more/bigger is better" too much - or maybe we would have seen a better adoption of
. True, I'm as guilty as the next man for moving on (yes, I kept some of my
gear because I still love it, but I'm basically all-in on the Nikon Z system at the moment). However, I certainly didn't do it because
was lacking in any major way; tiny things that matter to me personally were key. But for most people,
is all they'd ever need (and "ought to want", to cite one of my favourite author's figures).
M.