Why do people still argue about equivalence?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
Mirrorless Crusader
Regular MemberPosts: 263Gear list
Re: Why do people still argue about equivalence?
In reply to Lee Jay, 3 months ago

Lee Jay wrote:

Mirrorless Crusader wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

Mirrorless Crusader wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

Mirrorless Crusader wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

Perhaps there is another 25mm f/1.4 besides the Panasonic lens, but the price of that 50/2.8 full frame equivalent is considerably more (~$200) than either Nikon or Canon's 50/1.4s.

What about the price of the cameras you mount those lenses on?

What does the price of a full frame body have to do with you posting incorrectly that a two-stop slower 25mm f/1.4 m4/3 lens is cheaper than a full frame 50mm f/1.4?

Wrong. What I said what that you have to pay, in size and price, to shoot f/1.4 on FF. A lens doesn't take a picture by itself. Shooting FF costs more money, period.

For equivalent shots, it tends to cost less if you like lens speed, and in some cases, the comparison isn't even possible (got any f/1.4 zooms for 4/3?).

"Shoot f/1.4 on FF" should be pretty self-explanatory, it doesn't mean shoot f/2.8 on FF. For equivalent shots, you are forgeiting FF's advantage in IQ because you have to shoot at two stops higher ISO to get the same exposure, ...

You are only shooting at 2-stops higher ISO if you are comparing to 4/3 at f/0.7. 4/3 can't get to f/0.7 at any cost.

I spent the morning shooting with f/4 and f/2.8 zooms on full-frame. Could you do the "equivalent" on 4/3 for the same price as I paid?

and it still costs more because of the huge price difference between camera bodies. Especially if you compare high end to high end or low end to low end.

High-end full-frame bodies are much higher end than high-end micro-4/3 bodies.

If size is also an issue, you can still retain over a stop advantage with full frame by buying an ultra cheap, small, and sharp 50mm f/1.8 from either brand.

What about the size of the cameras you mount those lenses on?

What does that have to do with the fact that your 25mm f/1.4 is heavier and considerably longer than the 1 1/3 stop faster Canon 50mm f/1.8 (and close to 6X the price)?

Again, it has to do with the fact that a lens doesn't take a picture by itself. You need a dinosaur camera that costs an ungodly amount of money compared to MFT cameras.

A 6D and a GH4 cost the same. And a 6D is a fine camera with a far-superior viewfinder and supporting lens and accessory system.

Oh I see, you're comparing the most tricked out, highest-specced, state of the art MFT camera that is really more specialized in video, to the most bare-bones, stripped down, entry-level FF camera with only one card slot. Yeah that's a really fair comparison.

I'd take the 6D over the GH4 hands down, and not by a narrow margin.

Well I guess that settles it then - if YOU would take it, that makes it indisputably superior for everyone else.

Calling the viewfinder far superior is like calling black and white photography far superior to color - an entirely subjective statement of opinion that is becoming more of an anachronism with each passing year.

It's better in every way - resolution, lag, DR, power usage, color, etc.

It's a whole lot worse in the one way that matters more than any of those other considerations to most people - the fact that what you see in the viewfinder isn't what you get out of the camera.

 Mirrorless Crusader's gear list:Mirrorless Crusader's gear list
Olympus Body Cap Lens 15mm F8.0
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