Full-framer logic

tkbslc wrote:

I'm seeing funny and absurd comments with all the frenzy around the A9.

Did you find the comments and frenzy surrounding the em1 ii funny and absurd? There is a search bar......

On the one hand we have people saying there's no way a pro would ever consider using a tiny sensor like 4/3 because it is noisy and has no DOF control. So don't even try to compare the E-M1 II to the A9.

Do you compare the rx10iii to the em1ii? Your cellphone?

And then on the other hand we have people trying to justify the Sony lens lineup by saying that it's fine that the only super telephoto is a 400mm f5.6, because FF high ISO is so good.

So let me get this straight, 2 stops is super important at the sensor, but irrelevant in the lenses?

Nope is important both ways. Way the gfx falls a bit short in certain areas

Makes me laugh to think of geniuses out there using f5.6 lenses on a $4500 camera at ISO 6400-12800 because 4/3 with a 40-150 f2.8 is somehow lesser grade.

There actually are some very good 5.6 lenses. If you are using 2.8s on MFT then what is the point either way? They both price similarly and there isn't a ton of difference at the end of the day?

What I actually took offense to was FFers. That makes some sort of us vs them garbage. You actually have a lot of users on this forum who use both. Are they "us" or "them". At the end of the day we are all taking photographs. The us and them is garbage. There are technical differences but I do not lump M4/3 users into a garbage category