Reading resolution charts comparing MFT lenses to FX lenses

Started Mar 29, 2013 | Questions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 39,291
Re: Ideally...

John King wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

John King wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:
Of course, this now opens a huge can o' worms, since the lenses for smaller sensor systems will, on average, resolve better than lenses for larger sensor systems, and we'll have the ignorant masses chanting "lw/ph = lw/ph" to go along with "f/2 = f/2", and any attempts to educate will be met with "entertainment".

But, now that I think about it, I'm good with that. 

I take it that this is in contradistinction to the "ignorant masses" who are desirous of redefining photographic terms and usage of over 100 years to suit some personal agenda and hubris?

Which photographic terms are being "redefined", by whom, and what is their "personal agenda and hubris"?

I think Andy Westlake said all that needs to be said on the subject here:

and here:

Last couple of sentences in each of his posts.

Seems that he didn't want to be "educated" either ...

Well, that first link was answered without rebuttal here:

as was the second:

Perhaps you'd like to offer a rebuttal?  Specifically, what is "aperture" and why do we care?  As a side, since AW brought up metering and exposure, here's a very, very, very simple question for you:

For a given scene, does f/2.8 1/100 ISO 400 on mFT (4/3) have the same exposure as f/2.8 1/100 ISO 1600 on FF?  A "yes" or "no" will do nicely.

If "yes", then I'm afraid I don't see what point you are making.  If "no", what is the significance of the exposures being different?

It is quite apparent (to me at least) to whom Andy is referring ...

Seemed to me like he was responding to Lee Jay.

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