Full-framer logic

karlreed wrote:

But Robert. You and He may be right. I have to tell, the reason why I spent several months trying to prove to myself that the MFT gear I purchased at a competitive price was as good as the alternatives was that I fell in love with the build and the EVF. The end after my test host, I analyses some three hundred shots taken under similar conditions at an event over two days and the numbers told me my heart would lead my down a path where I would be disappointed in future.

There is nothing wrong with mft, only SOME mft users.

It seems like some people here, in spite of how much they seem to despise the format, have a burning desire to make mft the new FF.  They somehow need the prestige and professionalism that they must secretly think that FF provides, even though they would never admit that in public.  Yet, to the same end that they claim FF users believe that their format is the be-all, end-all answer to every question regarding photography, is exactly how they insist on portraying mft to the world.

In any way that mft falls short, they claim that it's NOT the camera it's the photographer. In any way that mft excels, they claim that it IS the camera, not the photographer.

They claim that depth of field any narrower than what mft is capable of is too shallow. They claim that any photo that cannot be taken with mft is not a photo. They claim that subjects that do not remain still long enough for image stabilization to help make up for the total light difference between FF and mft have no business having their pictures taken. They claim that there is no excuse for a big and heavy lens, unless it is big and heavy and mft. Then it is automatically not as heavy, whether it weighs more or not. Hell, they won't even eat muffins, because right in the middle of the word is that stinking "FF"!

I have NO problem understanding why ANYONE would stick with MFT, particularly with cameras kike the EM1,.2 and G85 and GH5. In fact, someone said recently, there no bad digital cameras any more.

Heck, there's hardly a bad phone camera any more. Everything is good...for it's purpose.  But it's widely argued here that there IS no purpose outside of what mft provides.  Some people don't realize that the majority of their arguments against FF put mft squarely on the endangered list as well. If portability is tantamount and image quality comes second, why are so many people still toting around 2, 3, 4 or more lenses instead of buying a nice, light, versatile digicam?

Robert