MFT IQ gets "annihilated"

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
Big Ga
Forum ProPosts: 16,198
Like?
Re: MFT IQ gets "annihilated"
In reply to Steve Bingham, 4 months ago

Steve Bingham wrote:

I pretty much agree with Reilly - except the lens part!!!

The 18-55 is about as mediocre lens as Nikon makes - but respectable at f5.6.

Hmmm. So you also agree with:

"I'm just not impressed by mft at all for landscape"

and his whole argument centred around using THAT lens, and compared to an EM1 with a 12-40!!

when I challenged him with

"And the 18-55 nikon v the 12-40 Oly pro lens ???? I know which one will annihilate the other in that fight, and the Nikon isn't going to come out the winner!!!"

his reply was:

'Sure it is. For landscape, the only thing that matters is the pixel count, as you're always at f8 or smaller where any pretty much any lens is outresolving the sensor through most of the frame'

So Steve, are you sure you're pretty much agreeing with Reilly ??

Now why wouldn't a DX 24mp camera with no AA filter not be better than a MFT? Especially if they were both shooting with their best pro glass

It should indeed be better that's not the argument.

We're talking about using the 'mediocre' 18-55 v probably the best pro landscape lens MFT has; we're also talking about that lens on the best MFT camera being 'annihilated' by the 'mediocre' lens setup; we're talking about someone who's claiming "For landscape, the only thing that matters is the pixel count"; and to top it off, we're dealing with someone who's posted an image to back up his assertion, claiming its 'sooc' and yet it looks as if its been sharpened to within an inch of its life.

Still sure you pretty much agree with him?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow