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

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
RealPancho Senior Member • Posts: 1,313
Re: Yes and no (or is it no and yes?)

ultimitsu wrote:

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

Okay, I was exaggerating: none were the size of a phone booth; they were they size of a pay phone. And put that 70-200 on a Canon 6D and you've got a pay phone with a bazooka attached to it!

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.

You're making a logical inference where none exists.

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.

I didn't say that was a reason to "upgrade." I simply said that I knew cameras with higher MP counts existed, and that better cameras existed as well. I didn't imply that those conditions necessarily coexisted, even though I did offer one such example.

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.

Again, you are assuming. And insulting too, I might add.

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 ).

I'm finding the D600 for about $2000, and the kit for $2500. That would come close to matching my E-M5 + Panasonic 12-35 at a total of $2100, but then I'd have to carry around a gargantuan beast, which I really have no interest in. The modest gains I would realize simply don't benefit me.

-- hide signature --


 RealPancho's gear list:RealPancho's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS3 Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +6 more
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