with low light performance of the 5n, what is the appeal of full-frame?

Started Nov 10, 2012 | Discussions thread
ennemkay
Senior MemberPosts: 1,293Gear list
Like?
Re: with low light performance of the 5n, what is the appeal of full-frame?
In reply to coudet, Nov 10, 2012

coudet wrote:

ennemkay wrote:

the reason i bring it up is that, when comparing the m43 vs. nex, even though dof and iso differences are only about a stop, the two systems are the same price, so choosing nex for that extra stop still makes sense. but ff systems are WAY more expensive

No, FF is actually cheaper.

Look at 24/1.8 for NEX, for examplel. NEX user pays $1,100 for a slow 35mm equivalent. How much does (would) an equivalent lens cost for FF, a very slow 35mm? Peanuts? RicksAstro, above, wrote a good post. MFT users have it really bad.

that's more an milc vs dslr, mass production thing. if you compare canon aps-c to ff, then it's a different story. all other things being equal the ff lenses have more glass and should cost more. in other words, i'm speculating that an milc ff camera will be extremely expensive (both body and lenses).

 ennemkay's gear list:ennemkay's gear list
Olympus Stylus Tough TG-850 iHS Sony Alpha NEX-5N Olympus PEN E-PM2 Sony RX100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow