Full-framer logic

zxaar wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

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

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.

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? 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.

Some logic really does not add up for example buys m43 for weight and size and talks about how many lenses the system has.

In my case, I am using a A$1400 lens I already own on a refurbished D750 I got for under $1700  that weighs 1.155kg vs a A$4200 EM1.2+12-100mmf4 that weighs 1.136kg. If I add the 40-150mmf2.8 to get the extra reach, the wight goes up to 1.85kg and cost to A$5600 or so. And, I don't need to change my lens! Mind you, if you buy a new D750 and 28-300mmVR, its more like A$2400+1400=$3800. But, I'd be selling all mu FF gear of I kept the EM1.2 (and, if I did, I need the FL900R to match a SB800)

Anyway, I must say I am impressed with the EM1.2.. don't get me wrong!

And, the point about what they pics look like printed IS important!  As someone else said, the difference can be imperceptible, as i found.. and believe me, the FF people DON"T like that at all!