Full-framer logic

Fun 4 all 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.

If the M43 camera gives you the neccessary IQ, then a FF camera is overkill and a waste of money.

Most of the time M43 does provide the IQ shooters want. But there are some times when people need more and that is what FF is for. But it is a relatively small amount of the time.

I spent a few minutes helping a co-worker with a D4s last week (we have a fleet of FF Nikon gear at work), and it just reminded me why I love my OM-Ds. The D4s is a tank, and with the 70-200/2.8, it felt more like a power tool than a camera with the noisy focus mechanism. My arms were getting tired after a few minutes. There are times I wonder if I could produce better results with an A7RII, but most often, the camera is not the limiting factor.