Is FF really better than m43? and why?

Started Jun 9, 2013 | Discussions thread
Midwest Forum Pro • Posts: 18,105
Re: Is FF really better than m43? and why?

Kim Letkeman wrote:

Midwest wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

A2T2 wrote:

Are you for real, far less distracting background, its completely blurred. You need to shoot f2.8 FF to get a similar image.

Sigh ... completely blurred ... you shot at 56mm f/6.3 ... which is equivalent where DOF is concerned to 112mm f/13 on FF ...

Your assertion that FF requires 4.5 more stops of aperture for a similar image is so spectacularly incorrect that you must be simply having us on. Spend more time looking at images from FF cameras before misjudging them so badly ...

Welcome to another 'Help me reassure myself that my kind of camera is The Very Best Kind For Everyone, and one would be a fool to buy any other kind' thread.

I didn't want to be that blunt but am very glad you said it

Glad to. Personally I don't think the OP's sample photo at the top of the thread is even as good as m43, never mind FF. To quote the Peggy Lee song, "Is that all there is?"

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