Micro four thirds - hype or hip?

[beneos]

I've spent the last week reading as much as I could about micro four thirds cameras, and it looks like many people are trumpeting MFT as the "death of DSLR" or at least a viable option. Since I'm on the prowl for a new SLR, the MFT cameras - GH2 in particular - is making me think twice about going with a Canon/Nikon.

But is MFT really that great? I have some issues/questions:[list]
[*]The cameras appear to be smaller and made of plastic, i.e., cheaper. Yet they don't cost consumers any less.
[*]MFT sensors are about half the size of the new consumer level Nikon D3200 (full frame). How can this NOT be inferior? - at least for stills?
[*]Lens focal length and aperture are double that of 35mm film cameras, so a 45mm f/1.8 is effectively a 90mm f/3.6. To get 2.8 aperture, you need to buy an f/1.4.
[*]Lenses are smaller and plastic and look like toys. The optics are WAY smaller. So they're probably a lot cheaper to manufacture. Yet the price is not cheaper. For example, the Olympus 85mm 1.8 is more than twice the price of a Nikon 85mm 1.8D. Not a fair comparison, you might think - well, there isn't a 42mm 1.4, so the closest I could find is a Fujifilm 35mm f/1.4 for $600. Doesn't anyone else have misgivings about laying down $400 for a little plastic prime lens? For just over $100 you can get a killer Nikon 50mm 1.8.
[*]Optical viewfinders are rare on MFTs (and they'd be rangefinders), and electronic viewfinders will always suffer latency - perhaps not an issue for video, but would be for still photography.
[/list]
So the words that sum up the physical characteristics of a MFT system are[list]
[*]Small
[*]Plastic
[*]Toylike
[*]Expensive
[/list]
Smaller lens diameters and smaller sensors would seem to be more susceptible to dust and imperfections. I don't know - just hypothesizing.

I've read that, for video, the GH2 has some magic that makes it on par with high end DSLRs. But still photographs are almost but not quite as good - from what I've read.

Has anyone ditched their DSLR for MFT?

These are the questions and concerns I have about micro four thirds. This isn't a list of gripes - just some things I've read. I haven't even SEEN a GH2 with my own eyes, but I've seen some of the other mirrorless cameras. So all this is just a synopsis of what I've read on the web. I'd like to hear from you people who know more than what the Oracle can provide.

Thanks! - and I hope the above doesn't rile anyone. Just looking for opinions.

B

[Julian]

The GH2 is from 2010, photography-wise (noise, dynamic range) it's not on par with the best dslrs. If you look into the same price category though the difference is not that big.

Recently the new Olympus OM-D showed big improvements in still image quality, the dynamic range is on par with high end aps-c-cameras and for noise it's almost the same.

If you want the shallowest DOF you need full frame. You're never going to beat full frame combined with a 35mm or 24mm 1.4. You can get a voigtlander 17,5mm 0,95, that gives the equivalent of 35mm 1.8. For the 24mm there is no substitute.

The sensor size isn't much smaller than S35 used for cinema though. So you can get the cinema look without any problems.

The expensive glass isn't Plastic and toy like at all. Performance is outstanding, corner to corner. Often better than full frame. The Olympus 75mm 1.8 I would never buy, but read some tests, it sets benchmarks. For me a big plus of MFT is the ability to adapt almost any lens. Just buy some cheap old manual lenses. You won't mis autofocus when filming and optics from decades ago are still great.

Compared to full frame MFT is cheap. The GH2 already beats the 5D II and III in resolution for video. There are plenty of test videos where you can compare. To me the difference is pretty amazing. And were talking $700 GH2 against $3500 5D.

Wait for the GH3... Read the article on the front page.

Personally, I'd say fullframe is still the best for photography (I like small DOF), for video or as a hybrid cam, MFT is great. Right now I have a 5D mark I (no video). I'm going to change it for mirror less, probably the GH3. Mainly cause my growing interest in video.

If photography is your main thing, MFT is not going to beat the 5D 3 and D800 (and probably A99) on that aspect. Probably the GH3 will beat all of those hands down in video though.

[Axel]

[quote]The cameras appear to be smaller and made of plastic, i.e., cheaper. Yet they don't cost consumers any less.[/quote]

You may have heard that this is about to change - the plastic part. The rest is fact.

[quote]MFT sensors are about half the size of the new consumer level Nikon D3200 (full frame). How can this NOT be inferior? - at least for stills?[/quote]

It is. For stills. DSLR cameras - and especially full frame DSLRs - are designed for stills. The lenses are calculated for the bigger sensors and (more or less, as always) for the corresponding smallest [b]pic[/b]ture [b]el[/b]ements, b.k.a. pixels. Not for a considerably smaller amount of pixels, like fullHD. Since video was a minor matter, a satisfying compromise comes at the cost of the artifacts you probably have heard of. You can put it like this: A GH2 ist not too bad for stills, and a DSLR not too bad for video.

[quote]Lens focal length and aperture are double that of 35mm film cameras, so a 45mm f/1.8 is effectively a 90mm f/3.6. To get 2.8 aperture, you need to buy an f/1.4.[/quote]

No. A native 2.8 aperture lets in the same amount of light here and there. But: With crop factor 2, an adapted full frame lens lets through much [i]more[/i] light on MFT.

???

How can [i]that[/i] be? You say, a 50 mm f/1.4 is actually a 100 mm on MFT. Right. But the fastness of a lens is the quotient of the focal length in milimeter- f - and the widest diameter of the aperture in milimeter. So you get a 100 mm tele (relative to full frame) with the same opening. With the GH2, you can crop the image further ('digital zoom') - not only without resolution loss, but with best resolution, because one pixel is covered by one pixel on the sensor. The additional crop factor is 2.6. You get a 260 mm tele @ 'f1.4' - practically.

Only the DoF is by far not as shallow.

[quote]Lenses are smaller and plastic and look like toys. The optics are WAY smaller. So they're probably a lot cheaper to manufacture. Yet the price is not cheaper. For example, the Olympus 85mm 1.8 is more than twice the price of a Nikon 85mm 1.8D. Not a fair comparison, you might think - well, there isn't a 42mm 1.4, so the closest I could find is a Fujifilm 35mm f/1.4 for $600. Doesn't anyone else have misgivings about laying down $400 for a little plastic prime lens? For just over $100 you can get a killer Nikon 50mm 1.8.[/quote]

As you wrote above, it is'nt cheaper. Is being small a drawback? Depends. For some body parts. For things that need to look impressing. Or feign professionalism.

[beneos]

Thanks for the responses - I'm really considering buying the GH2 based entirely on the stellar reviews here and elsewhere. I have quite a few great old lenses that I could use with it. The GH3 could be interesting if they ship it with a decent prime.

B

[beneos]

[url="http://gizmodo.com/5894623/sony-and-olympus-mirrorless-lens-teardowns-reveal-beautiful-compact-design?tag=microfourthirds"]Just found this article that shows how the MFT lenses are made[/url] - I look at this and wonder - can these possibly be as good as a typical SLR lens? And you know that they maximize profits selling these for $300 a pop.

[img]http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2012/03/Sonycore1-1024x328.jpg[/img]

[kirk]

Beneos, if you don't like the size, price and "toylike" appearance, why even bother? Sounds to me like you'll just continue to find reasons not to go M4/3...

Get a Canon or Nikon if that makes you happy. And let content M4/3 users be content...

[Axel]

A GH2 with just the kit lens or a bunch of not cheap system lenses really wouldn't have been a great success, you are right. It's the background of people like Andrew that made me (and thousands of others) realize the opportunities. The disassembled plastic lenses show chips that let the lenses communicate with the camera in order to facilitate automatic functions and be operated through the camera's menu. For instance you can touch the motif on the display, and the lens will focus on it. An amateur mode if there ever was one.

A few years ago video enthusiasts were seeking for a more cinematic look. They (I don't single me out) bought expensive and cumbersome devices like 35mm adapters (I had the Letus extreme) to screw them in front of their camcorders (which had diminutive chips). [u]Old[/u] manual Nikon or Canon lenses were bought. With the appearance of the Canon 5D M2 they were history (not in all respects, not all at once, but rather quickly). Using a DSLR to shoot video meant [i]diverting the camera from it's intended purpose[/i], and this is the core of it all.

The GH1 had comparatively good resolution at a low price, and [u]old[/u] lenses could be adapted without problems. Manual lenses. The GH2 then was praised as artifact-free[color=#ff0000]*[/color] and with almost full resolution at 1920. The fact that the new chip was optimized for the 16:9 AR is a hint that Panasonic jumped on the wagon intendedly. It was an invitation to further [i]misuse the chip. [/i]The Nokton 25 mm by Voigtländer was an argument for many (for me as well) to buy the GH2 as a second camera (meanwhile there is an even more impressive 17,5 mm available). Owners of an EOS (like me, 7D with experiences with a borrowed 5D) found not only the GH2 video to look good compared to the Canon's, they found it to look better in most respects. The hacks, whether they fulfill their promises or not, formed a community. The pros and cons of every aspect were discussed in detail and in earnest, and this finally confirmed MFT as a serious alternative. An independent database, highly motivated developers, great expectations everywhere, let's hope the providers at Panasonic don't let us down. We'll know in a fortnight.

The sensor size is much closer to that of Super 35mm film cameras than to that of a full frame DSLR (background: 35mm film runs through a film camera [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film"]vertically[/url], not horizontally, four perforation holes are a frame, not eight), the DoF characteristics are almost identical (closer yet with APS-C or Sonys E-Mount sensors). These comparisons shouldn't bother us though, because film is about to disappear.

You must understand that all these things have a lomografic element to them. The first affordable camera to produce cinematic images exclusively may be the BMCC (with a sensor size closer to 16mm, but who cares?), and even with it, there will be adaptations and creative solutions.

[color=#ff0000]*[/color]Banding needs to be controlled. We all hope for the GH3 to get rid of this issue.

[jgharding]

I can't imagine these lenses having any real character. If you're gonna go M4/3 you can still use nice glass, it's not like I've ever shot video on the EOS with the 18-55 EF-S Canon kit lens! I mean, who would buy a dirt cheap plastic Canon prime over a second hand one from back when things were made of metal and glass or a nice big ol "loadsa glass and metal" Samyang. It's just madness...

The GH2 video is definitely sharper than the Canons, with way more detail when zooming in 100%. But in delivery format it always feels pretty 'camcorder' to me, regardless of pixel peeping. Exceptions are when it's fitted with expensive anamorphic glass, that seems to overcome it. Same with the RX100: it's sharper than the EOS, but cutting it together in a timeline with EOS footage (or with the FS700 footage) you can spot the slight flatness of the RX100 footage like a sore thumb. This is the only thing that worries me a little. Since it's a new sensor in the GH3, hopefully it'll be improved in this sense, and the scaling methods and the like will make it all feel a bit deeper.

Last night I was watching Lost In Translation on Blu Ray. It's amazing how soft that film is, it reminded me of EOS footage. Maybe I just like that look ;)

[Mirrorkisser]

I like the canon look, too. But its too much in fashion now. I was working at a tv station and people were already telling the cameramen 3 years ago: Uhh i want that canon look, that super duper shallow depth of field. The result was, that even in situations where its totally unnecessary or unneeded, there is this super shallow depth of field now. Also in many forums you get the feeling that almost everybody is after that look. But how boring would it be if all footage looked like that?

The new hack by driftwood is supposed to take some of the sharpness out of the gh2, but ungraded i dont see too much difference to be honest.

End of the day though, no matter whether its canon or anything else, its the person behind the camera and the feel of that person. Instincts for composition and making the audience feel that you put something of yourself into that footage. I know quite some people who would beat me anyday with worse things than an iphone. No matter what i had.

[Axel]

[quote name='Mirrorkisser' timestamp='1346837611' post='17352']The new hack by driftwood is supposed to take some of the sharpness out of the gh2, but ungraded i dont see too much difference to be honest.[/quote]

Two of the things that are confused often, if not always, are sharpness and resolution. You can get an SD source on a big screen, really, really sharp. Without any intelligent upscaling (interpolating the missing information, then sharpening the result) you will see pixels as stair-step-aliasing on the outlines and mosaics on bigger areas. A pleasant and natural looking image will not be described as sharp at all. It will allow softness through rich resolution - of the detail [u]and[/u] the color!

Therefore a 5D video looks pleasant, as long as you don't try to split hairs, spider webs in the backlight or - in the opposite - too big areas of subtly changing colors. 5D videos need medium shots to shine. You must have enough shallow DoF to make the sharp parts appear sharp within the softness. Often proved, that these images look good on big screens.

GH2 videos seem to have poorer colors - I don't know why, they appear so to me. The workaround is detail to add structure to bigger areas. The unwanted sharpness (granted you dialed down sharpness in the settings) seems to be completely determined by what you put in front of the sensor. The system lenses over f4.0 kill every bit of softness. A Tiffen low contrast 1 will make them acceptable, without reducing resolution.

[jgharding]

[quote name='Mirrorkisser' timestamp='1346837611' post='17352']
I like the canon look, too. But its too much in fashion now. I was working at a tv station and people were already telling the cameramen 3 years ago: Uhh i want that canon look, that super duper shallow depth of field. The result was, that even in situations where its totally unnecessary or unneeded, there is this super shallow depth of field now.
[/quote]

Yes I've had some horrible footage given to me before: interviews shot at f1.4 or f1.2 in bright light with ND, so the face goes in and out of focus as the subject moves. Totally the wrong setting for the scene, he should've started at f4 or f5.6 or so. it was just a fad because the tool was new, people thinking "How do I shoot this as shallow as possible?" rather than "what depth of field is right for this shot?" and lighting and setting ISO accordingly.

I don't see that as the Canon look though, just someone not knowing how best to use that size of chip. Their look is in the colour reproduction and a kind of unique rendering. Even with a VAF filter to cut down moire and sharpen it up or a hack to increase bitrate, the EOS footage maintains its feel. It's pretty unique. It's probably a combo of all the tings: the sensor itself, the AD conversion process after the photo-diodes, the colour processing, encoding, so on. A lot of stages there to affect the feel of footage.

[quote name='Mirrorkisser' timestamp='1346837611' post='17352']End of the day though, no matter whether its canon or anything else, its the person behind the camera and the feel of that person. Instincts for composition and making the audience feel that you put something of yourself into that footage. I know quite some people who would beat me anyday with worse things than an iphone. No matter what i had. [/quote]

Yes that last point is very true. I've had some 7D footage given to me before that whipped the previous two C300 jobs. Shame about the moire, but it mattered less than the soulful job that the DP did.

[jgharding]

To draw on my audio background: It's a bit like the difference between recording a vocal to high sample-rate and bit-depth digital, or to quarter-inch tape tape.

The former has huge dynamic range and tons of information, making that feel nice and human is a matter of removing information, dirtying it up so it isn't sterile, introducing non-linearities and controlled distortion to make it feel "real" not hyper real.

Quarter inch tape does all that for you, it's a baked-in sound or feel.

Video wise, the Canons just lucked out (or were designed) so they happen to bake in a nice aesthetic which, though it's worse on paper, in reality just does something people like. Things like BMD cam are going to make many people learn a LOT of post skills. Without those it'll end up look like TV digibeta.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='beneos' timestamp='1346783964' post='17311']
I've spent the last week reading as much as I could about micro four thirds cameras, and it looks like many people are trumpeting MFT as the "death of DSLR" or at least a viable option. Since I'm on the prowl for a new SLR, the MFT cameras - GH2 in particular - is making me think twice about going with a Canon/Nikon.

But is MFT really that great? I have some issues/questions:[list]
[*]The cameras appear to be smaller and made of plastic, i.e., cheaper. Yet they don't cost consumers any less.
[*]MFT sensors are about half the size of the new consumer level Nikon D3200 (full frame). How can this NOT be inferior? - at least for stills?
[*]Lens focal length and aperture are double that of 35mm film cameras, so a 45mm f/1.8 is effectively a 90mm f/3.6. To get 2.8 aperture, you need to buy an f/1.4.
[*]Lenses are smaller and plastic and look like toys. The optics are WAY smaller. So they're probably a lot cheaper to manufacture. Yet the price is not cheaper. For example, the Olympus 85mm 1.8 is more than twice the price of a Nikon 85mm 1.8D. Not a fair comparison, you might think - well, there isn't a 42mm 1.4, so the closest I could find is a Fujifilm 35mm f/1.4 for $600. Doesn't anyone else have misgivings about laying down $400 for a little plastic prime lens? For just over $100 you can get a killer Nikon 50mm 1.8.
[*]Optical viewfinders are rare on MFTs (and they'd be rangefinders), and electronic viewfinders will always suffer latency - perhaps not an issue for video, but would be for still photography.
[/list]
So the words that sum up the physical characteristics of a MFT system are[list]
[*]Small
[*]Plastic
[*]Toylike
[*]Expensive
[/list]
Smaller lens diameters and smaller sensors would seem to be more susceptible to dust and imperfections. I don't know - just hypothesizing.

I've read that, for video, the GH2 has some magic that makes it on par with high end DSLRs. But still photographs are almost but not quite as good - from what I've read.

Has anyone ditched their DSLR for MFT?

These are the questions and concerns I have about micro four thirds. This isn't a list of gripes - just some things I've read. I haven't even SEEN a GH2 with my own eyes, but I've seen some of the other mirrorless cameras. So all this is just a synopsis of what I've read on the web. I'd like to hear from you people who know more than what the Oracle can provide.

Thanks! - and I hope the above doesn't rile anyone. Just looking for opinions.

B
[/quote]

Very good post, because it really sums up the problems Micro Four Thirds has in terms of marketing and battling the misconceptions of the consumer.

'Bigger is better'. No it isn't. I chose a OM-D E-M5 for stills because I can carry 3 fast primes in a Think Tank holster, and the weight is far less as well.

'D3200 is full frame'. APS-C is a 1.6x crop over full frame. Micro Four Thirds is 2x crop, or 1.86x on the larger GH2 sensor.

'Plastic'. This entirely depends on the model, you can't say all Micro Four Thirds cameras are plastic - if you look at the build of the DSLRs for the same price, they're mostly poor too. It is true that the Lumix stuff have used a lot of plastic but I generally think Olympus have been above average with their PENs. Depends on the model. OM-D E-M5 is weather sealed and a metal body. GH3 will be magnesium alloy and also weather sealed.

Regarding the construction of the lenses, the cheap Canon 18-55mm and 50mm F1.8 EF have some of the lowest build quality on the market today, date back several years in their technology - and the lowest price as a result. Micro Four Thirds lenses are more expensive because they are generally better optically as well as in the technology they contain. Even the most basic 14-42mm on the GF / GH cameras is more advanced than the equivalent Nikon or Canon kit lens. Panasonic introduced silent AF motors first, as well as continually variable silent iris, and other innovations. Try a 18-55mm in live view on a Canon 600D and see how fast the focus is versus the 14-42mm on a GF3 or PEN.

Aperture, in terms of brightness is F1.8 regardless of sensor size. The depth of field calculations I have always ignored, because I am happy with the amount of depth of field control I get on a Micro Four Thirds sensor. To say you can't get a very shallow DOF on Micro Four Thirds is not right!

For stills I ditched my DSLR for a G1, back in 2008. The live view experience, EVF, articulating screen were all factors in that as well as the more compact size. The more adaptable lens mount got me into buying Canon FD primes on eBay for small prices, yielding superb results at F1.4 over the much slower kit lenses.

I digress...

It is video we're interested here. If it is the high quality stills you want, yes I agree there is still some merit in a DSLR. But there are merits for stills in a Micro Four Thirds camera as well, so it is not about which is better rather which is better suited to you.

[beneos]

I think this sums it up well:

[i]comparatively good resolution at a low price, and [u]old[/u] lenses could be adapted without problems[/i] - Axel

It's a great way to use all those old MF lenses in the closet, and the video is on par if not better than high end DSLRs. From what rumors I've read about the GH3, Panasonic has added some gravitas to the body with more metal and weatherproofing - that will help the feel of the camera, as will using old MF lenses - or those Voigtlanders!

And still there is not a silver bullet camera that does video and stills equally as well as say a separate GH2 and a Nikon D3X... yet.

I'm hoping that the MFT lens prices adjust downward as the format catches on in the US. And yes, when it comes to lenses, I do have a predisposition toward big and heavy; the best lenses in the world even today aren't constructed primarily with plastic. Plastic bodies don't bother me nearly as much as plastic lenses. But it makes sense that, as technology manages to squeeze more and more resolution on smaller and smaller sensors, lenses will get smaller and smaller - and cheaper and cheaper to produce.

Thanks for all the responses - it helped a lot. And I apologize if I bruised anyone's contentment.

[kirk]

Oh I'm not easily bruised on my contentment! Having had my GH2 drop to the tarmac on saturday (clothing opening the quick release...) I promptly ordered a replacement GH2 without hesitating for a second. And now the repairman tells me they can probably fix the damage easily, so I'll be the content owner of two :-)

I didn't even try to be annoying... just sensed that you not really were in the GH* camp, and that you probably would feel more at home with the heavier calibers :-) I'm not a "you're either with me or against me" kind of person.

[TJB]

[b]"Has anyone ditched their DSLR for MFT?[/b]

I own an use the GH2, 5DMKII and sometimes a 60D daily. Basically I find that the Canon is an unbeatable camera for shooting video and stills of people and rural landscapes especially with the 24-105mm f4 IS lens or the 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens. The latter has a poor manual focus ring for video but otherwise an "L" class lens. The former is my favourite IS lens of all time for video. Fairly quiet and so steady. At 105mm it's very usable and manual zoom and focus are silky smooth.
To my eye the colours on the Canon are so much more pleasing. With the right picture profile, skin tones are very natural.
The GH2 is an extremely versitile camera. I've shot 50i and 25p broadcast documentary jobs on it. (Admittedly it was downscaled to SD for transmission.) The producers loved the footage.
The GH2 is also my home video camera because of it's size, weight and ability to shoot very clean video and sharp stills. I have a better keeper rate with face recognition on the GH2 than auto focus on my Canon cameras.
Many say that the Canon cameras shoot better stills. But I say - how good do you really need your stills to be?
You've probably already read-
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/panasonic_gh2_revisited.shtml

The only thing I don't like about the GH2 is that I sometimes get very noisy images when underexposing using the Extra Tele convert feature and I don't like the silkypix software.

I carry the GH2 everywhere I go because the Canon cameras are so much heavier, larger and conspicuous that the Panasonic.

So have I ditched my DSLR for the GH2? The answer is almost. I shoot the Canon for the full frame look. I can't get "that" look with the MFT sensor size. f4 on my 5D is f2 on my GH2. The DOF is the same but the look isn't. Go figure. Someone more famous than me once said, that full frame makes you want to lick the screen. I think it's true but not so for the GH2.

[galenb]

[quote name='beneos' timestamp='1346800119' post='17335']
[url="http://gizmodo.com/5894623/sony-and-olympus-mirrorless-lens-teardowns-reveal-beautiful-compact-design?tag=microfourthirds"]Just found this article that shows how the MFT lenses are made[/url] - I look at this and wonder - can these possibly be as good as a typical SLR lens? And you know that they maximize profits selling these for $300 a pop.

[img]http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2012/03/Sonycore1-1024x328.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

Funny enough, the image you posted is actually a Sony E mount lens. It's actually meant for an APS-C size sensor camera.

[XXX]

I always catch myself wondering about MFT and its depth of field. Then I remember how happy I was with the DVX. The XL2. The HVX.
MFT is plenty enough.

[beneos]

Sorry about the mis-posted photo. The Sony and Olympus look so much the same - here's both:

[img]http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gy52wkgmsvsjpg/xlarge.jpg[/img]

I still wish they would use some other material than plastic.

Looking forward to seeing the GH3.

[galenb]

I wouldn't take these images as any indication of the build quality of micro 4/3 lenses. What you see are just pancake lenses. You make some sacrifices in order to have a low profile. You would see the same thing inside a Canon pancake. The regular MFT lenses are usually of very high quality. Olympus are outstanding and the Panasonic ones are designed by Leica (although they are manufactured in Japan) so you know they are very good quality as well. Speaking of Leica, I think it's pretty good endorsement of MFT if they choose to be a part of it. I have not ditched my DSLR in favor of a MFT camera. But that's only because I don't have a DSLR. ;-) I've used Canon cameras in my work for many yeas now and when it came time to choose a camera for personally use, I chose MFT because of the quality compared to it's size and the ability to adapt to all my weird lenses that I have left over from my SLR days. As far as apparent quality, with the right lens, I don't think you would be able to pick out the images made on a MFT cameras vs a full size DSLR. That's not to say DSLRs don't have their advantages. It's just that MFT does as well. there are trade offs to be made in either camp it just depends on what matters to you personally. Having said all that, I do think you raise some interesting points.