Absolute best value

Jim in Hudson wrote:

cameron2 wrote:

Wilu wrote:

as soon as you consider DOF equivalency (sorry for mentioning that term) the FF lenses to compare to are getting a bit smaller and most probably a lot cheaper. so i take your price comparison with a grain of salt.

You're not going to ever get "equivalency". At pretty much any size sensor, there is a larger sensor and there is a smaller sensor. The larger sensor will tend to have less DOF, will tend to handle a lack of photons more graciously, will tend to have a heavier body, and will tend to have larger lenses. The smaller sensor will tend to have more DOF, will tend to handle a lack of photons less graciously, will tend to have a lighter body, and will tend to have smaller lenses.

If thinner DOF is your target, you shouldn't compromise and get m43 or APSC or 35mm; you should get a Pentax 845 or a Leica S (etc.)

Everyone's gotta have their priorities ...

Here's how I see equivalence going from m43 to FF:

FF - slower lenses approaching (but not equal to) m43 lens size

FF - slower lenses giving similar DOF to m43

FF - slower lenses requiring higher ISO but IQ comes out similar to m43 when well above base ISO for each

So in the end, lens dimensions aren't as radically different as we might think, though still larger for FF.

FF - slower lenses often don't exist, especially when looking for additional features such as high IQ and weathersealing.