Full-framer logic

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.

Its all relative, and hence the overall discussion can be pointless. As others have posted, if m43 IQ and DOF range is good enough for you, then use that because its lighter and generally cheaper. In the example above, yes you have a FF 400mm F5.6, but there is no m43 lens that is 200mm F2.8 so you can't match it.

The same if someone really likes thin DOF, exteme bokeh etc. and shoots a 85/F1.4 wide open in FF, you can't get a 42.5/F0.7 lens in m43 so there is no point trying to convince that person to use m43. At the same time m43 users might like deeper DOF, with the 1.8 primes in m43 (equivalent F3.6 DOF in FF) giving them enough, in that case there is no point trying to convince that person to use FF.

It really is "horses for courses"