SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: Yes and no (or is it no and yes?)

RealPancho wrote:

When we were in Yosemite NP last summer, I noticed an army of vacationers carrying these gargantuan Canon and Nikon monstrosities around. I thought, "good god, is there some benefit here that I'm unaware of? Those things are HUGE!"

what you saw were most likely APS-C SLRs. they are bigger than OMD but nowhere near your exaggeration and the generally cost less than OMD too.

As for advantage you are not aware of, based on your post I think the answer is every single one.

So no, I didn't know specifics, but I did know that there were higher MP counts and better cameras in the world (Hasselblad, anyone?),

More MP is often rated pretty low in the "why upgrade to FF" rationale list for most people. That is also why hasselblad and Leica S2 and 645D remain a very small niche market despite there are so many rich people who can easily afford 100K on a hobby in this world.

but I knew after a few days with my E-M5 that the cost in dollars, size, and weight were not worth even considering.

Of course since you have no idea what the difference is.

Admittedly, I wound up spending a pretty fair amount on the kit I've assembled, but the equivalent in "full frame" would have cost even more.

I bet all it takes to match every lens you have in full frame world is a 24-85 (&400 with D600) and a 70-300 ($ 600 ).

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