Depth of Field on the M43 is in fact better not worse.....

Started May 26, 2012 | Discussions thread
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 57,402
You didn't honestate(?) properly

Playing fast and loose with the facts, again 'boggis'?

boggis the cat wrote:

ChrisDM wrote:

I agree with that. Its why I have a D7000 with a Tokina 50-135 2.8 as my second camera to compliment my D800. A 70-200 2.8 equivalent

Nope. They'll argue that it is "equivalent" to a 75-200 f/4.8.

Not quite, a 75-200/4.2. It will take the same range of pictures as a 75-200/4.2 would on his D800.

at a fraction of the weight and cost.

Yes, but it is "really f/4.8", according to the equivalators.

The 'equivalators' have never said that. What they have said is that it is 'equivalent to' an f/4.2 lens on FF. It's only you who continually lies about what the 'equivilators' say, presumbaly because you have nothing to counter it in the way of evidence. By the way, is 300mm really 600mm, or not?

Jim: Well folks have been saying that the extortionate Olympus 300mm F2.8 {UK £5700} is really a 600mm F2.8
boggis: That would be because it is.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=39410248

So it seems that the one who goes around saying things "really are" what they are not is you, not the 'equivilators'.

So equivalence DOES matter, its just that smaller sensors have their advantages also of course!

You need to learn your proper equivalatin'.

Or in your case, maybe you just need to learn to tell the truth occasionally.
--
Bob

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