Got a crop camera and a FF camera.
The FF is better in poor light.
the crop has better AF
The FF has a better user interface
the crop is faster and tougher
The crop puts more pixels on distant objects
The FF is better for wide angles.
The crop is less expensive.
The M? The ergonomics are terrible, but the price and size are fantastic!
I find the idea that one particular camera will be the best for everyone to be laughable. We all have different needs that depend on what we happen to be doing at the moment, and what we can afford. Just because someone else makes a different decision does not make them wrong, it just means that they have different criteria
I have a crop camera and a ff camera.
The FF is better in poor light.
The FF has better AF
The FF has a better user interface
The FF is faster and tougher
The FF is better for wide angles
The FF gives me more depth of field control
The FF battery life is vasty better
I can reproduce the FF image much larger (or crop into it, which is the same thing)
The crop is less expensive
The crop is considerably less conspicuous
The crop is a pleasure to take when photography is not the raison d'être of whatever I am doing
The crop is much easier to output wirelessly to printers, phones, iPads and the like
The crop puts more pixels on distant objects but I'd never use it in a focal length limited situation because it wouldn't balance as nicely with the longer lenses I have and the AF is nowhere near as good
The M? The ergonomics the price and size are fantastic!
I find the idea that one particular camera will be the best for everyone to be laughable. We all have different needs that depends on what we happen to be doing at the moment, and what we can afford. Just because someone else makes a different decision does not make them wrong, it just means that they have different criteria.