Food for thought - FF vs M4/3's cost

Started Mar 25, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
New MemberPosts: 13
Re: Food for thought - FF vs M4/3's cost
In reply to JamieTux, Mar 26, 2013

JamieTux wrote:

I don't think that's a sensor size thing - I used to have the A900 and I still prefer the output to the latest Canons and Nikons - I just wish the AF was at Nikon level (away from the centre point) and that they had equivalent quality lenses.

(All of the above is only true at low ISO of course!)

Yes, 35mm A-series images have a quality that's very much theirs. Very nice.

Surely Nikon and Canon have better glass than Sony/Minolta, if nothing else then for the sheer number of lenses, but I rather like my old Minoltas. Every now and then I'm tempted by the 28-75 f/2.8, but this year's treat has been the rather expensive Pana 35-100 for m4/3 so Alpha lenses are something for 2014 now.

Back to topic, both small and large cameras have their places. I just happen to use m4/3 a lot more, but I still wholeheartedly recommend 35mm for those who don't need to pack up light.

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