Reading resolution charts comparing MFT lenses to FX lenses

Started Mar 29, 2013 | Questions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,255
Speaking of...

John King wrote:

Perhaps Andy had more pressing things to do than arguing the toss with you and your fellow travellers, many of whom were involved in that thread, all singing from the same hymn book ...

Seems to me that he answered succinctly and precisely all the thousands of posts you and your fellow travellers have made asserting the contrary, both before and since. Not the slightest need for him to state it again, or in a different form.

If you and said fellow travellers cannot understand that clear message, that's your problem ...

Equally, I am not interested in debating this with you either. May as well try to reason with a religious fundamentalist. The zeal with which you pursue your personal re-writing of the history and usage of photographic terms places you in this position, no one else ...

..."trying to reason with a religious fundamentalist", how would you characterize the nature of the author of the quotes here?

But, to get things back on track, in case you change your mind, let me repeat my question (this time without the typo):

For a given scene, does f/2.8 1/100 ISO 400 on mFT (4/3) have the same exposure as f/5.6 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?

As always, answers are voluntary, not compulsory.  Either way, enjoy your day. 

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