Nikon FF v FT (again)

Started Dec 19, 2011 | Discussions thread
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 24,202

John King wrote:
Gidday Julie

windsprite wrote:

Hello Auntie


Like I said, I get that you get all that, but it seems like all too many people here would like to take home the message that FF is always ridiculously heavy, and FT is always the cure.


Louis_Dobson wrote:

Context was the point. That's why I just replied with MY experience. People's requirements are so different. For example, I hike up and down cliffs, so why on earth did I get FF? Answer, because I wanted the latitude to pull and push. OK, so if I wanted the latitude to pull and push, how come I've gone MFT? Because the latest MFT sensors give me nearly as much pull and push (which is enough, I need no more), and the system is not just lighter, it is a whole new world.

So, I didn't know enough about his needs to answer his question. And really, I'd need to hang around with him for a week before I did.

My general point though is, just because FF costs more, do not assume it is better for YOU. (not "you", obviously). And, if you are shooting things that don't run around, in daylight, don't assume you'll get better IQ either.

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you and yours.

Why does everyone stop at lenses with an AoV (EFL = effective FL) of 200 mm?

Why not continue the comparison of size, weight and cost of "FF" vs 4/3rds up to longer EFLs?

For just some examples:

  • what is the equivalent size, weight and cost of a lens with the same optical speed and EFL of the ZD 50~200?

  • Or the ZD f2/150?

  • Or even the ZD f2.8/300?

ALL systems have their advantages and disadvantages ...

Why the criticisms (implicit and explicit) of Louis for pointing out some of the disadvantages and advantages to him (and many others, me included) of the choices he has made?

One can hardly reproach him for not giving his D3 kit a very good and protracted workout ...

This is what happens when you jump in so late... you missed the point and the subject.

You always try to twist things so that it will fit YOUR agenda.

Louis is giving up a faster lens to an EQUIVALENT but slower one. I hardly think he agree with your comparison and don't think he care about the Oly 300/2.8 or the 150/2.

Your way of demanding comparison is just childish nonsense. You can always pick a way of comparing lenses between systems which do not exist in another system. How about taking the Nikon 35/1.8 and compare that with an Oly with equal aperture? Oops, sorry you don't have one... What about the 50/1.4, 85/1.8 or 85/1.4? Oh, so there is nothing anywhere near those from Oly? Oh, well, I am sorry... Or take the 105/2.8... Oops, also a non-existing one? How long not comparable (because not existing) list do you want to see? Where are those lenses from Olympus? Or why not take the 14-24/2.8 Louis is giving up. Is there one from Oly matching the aperture? No, of course there is not. So you see...

For just some examples:

  • what is the equivalent size, weight and cost of a lens with the same optical speed and EFL of the ZD 50~200?

  • Or the ZD f2/150?

  • Or even the ZD f2.8/300?

...the above is just the usual rubbish because all it does is that it fits your agenda and childish mind. Besides, you know very well that making lenses equivalent will make them about equal in size and weight.

Luis is giving up the D3 in favor of a lighter but weaker system, but he is not replacing the D3 with FT and HG/SHG. He is using a light MFT and an MFT lens. He is giving up a very high quality lens to a lesser quality but considerably lighter one. As simple as that.


I still have some editing time left, so I could type a few words to you as well but I will not.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow