Full-framer logic

ekaton wrote:

karlreed wrote:

ekaton wrote:

Help, I am confused. I use FF, aps-c, mft. I like all of them, for different reasons. And shamefully I must admit to even use a one incher. And now I read all these thoughtful educated threads about "mine is bigger than yours", "this is why size does not matter", or "smaller, indeed is better", and the best: "Equivalence this, equivalence that......., why F2 is not F2 and 50mm not 50mm", "dof, stops, iso cheaters,". Help, I am confused. Did I loose my identity as a photog, not knowing which size and why?

Who can help me.:-O

Well, may be I can help a little..

Lets assume that net cost of a platform is irrelevant. Either the cost is similar after you've sold what you have, OR, the cost of either systems is something you can afford.

A. You need to decide WHAT you shoot, and, what is important about it.

There may be some scene types that only occur occasionally, but they are important to you. If you don't do this, you will end up being disappointed.

B.Then, decide what you are going to do with them.

C. Then you need to decide what you want to carry. This is interesting. I have pro friends who carry several FF pro bodies and massive glass, and, think nothing about lugging 10-15kg around. Not all are body builders either. I see from the forums, there are people with bag fulls of small MFT primes. changing lenses all the time. My preference would be for two bodies, BTW.

Just to make life difficult (for you and for me as well), I am posting two shots of the Melbourne exhibition buildings. One FF, and, the other EM1.2 The are NOT shot for identical exposures, however, the illustrate one of the contradiction we face.

The FF is probably at the minimum shutter speed for mild action. Remember, that in a sports scene you'd need 1/250 or higher. The FF will take a higher iso without to much trouble

The MFT shutter speed is below safe action shooting, however, it could, with the IBIS, have been shot about 2 stops slower (and, 2 stops lower iso).

The FF has been processed in LR6.10 with some NR, the NFT with OV3 with some NR, but, OV3 seems to clean up high iso low light well, but, NOT high iso medium light.

I haven't labeled them, look at the EXIF later

BUT, before going into attack mode, think about my comments above.

My post was written with tongue in cheek. With the EM1.2 and 12-100mm I could easily shoot this static scene @ one second handheld with the iso significantly lower.

Sure, I have strong of shots where i wen from I think 12800 to 1600 on boith cameras, and, without a tripod, the D750 was not in the hunt at all!

However, i would be interested in how you think these compare? Sure, the iso isn't the same, but, the Em1.2 isn' t  not two stops below the D750. I've cropped them to the same size, which may also be a problem.