Is the picture taken by a legacy FF lens sharper when mounted on m43?

Since a smaller sensor captures a smaller portion of the image circle projected by a lens, and since most lenses tend to loose sharpness at any given aperture as you move away from the center, does it mean a legacy full frame lens mounted on a m43 camera will produce an overall sharper image than if it were mounted on a FF camera?
In other words, will the final image be less soft at the edges, since you're cropping them out?

Yes and no.

What you said is true, but then the lens has to resolve a much higher resolution in the center of the lens than it was designed for.

In most cases a ff lens will be sharper on a ff camera due to that fact.

parakalien said:

In most cases a ff lens will be sharper on a ff camera due to that fact.

Click to expand...

Not sure I see this, at least if we're comparing the image cropped down to the MFT field of view.

Either the FF camera has a lesser resolution for that area (not likely, as it would need to be 64Mpixels to 80Mpixels, and most aren't) and then the sharpness is limited by that lesser resolution and wouldn't be any worse on the M43's higher resolution, or if it has the same resolution or higher resolution for that area, it has the same resolution-resolving issue as the M43 camera.

Why would it be sharper?

It depends on the lens (even the individual specimen) and on the aperture setting. You will generally get less decay in sharpness towards the corners, but the center sharpness may or may not be adequate.

With wide angle lenses in particular, it is virtually impossible to get results with legacy lenses that come close to what a current native lens can do. Lens design has come a long way in the last few decades. But stop the legacy lens down a few stops and don't pixel peep, and you may well like what you're getting.

Longer lenses tend to have less decay towards the corners to start with, and also generally adapt well. Thinking of my Nikon 55/2.8, 135/3.5 and 180/2.8 lenses they are good enough that I don't hesitate to use them on vacation.

A legacy FF, if it means a film lens, will perform poorly on M43 cameras.

I think saying any film legacy lens performs poorly is not true. I admit that using legacy lenses is difficult. I used them around 2011-2012 when we had very few native MFT lenses and captured some very memorable shots that still look very competitive with modern MFT glass. I have some samples in my Gallery uploaded a long time ago. See this forum for lots of samples of legacy lenses

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1065

Legacy glass is key to a lot of cinematic looking video and they are widely used by videographers. There are adapters that take FF lenses and concentrate their image circle into the MFT image circle that are awesome and produce some very unique and sweet images not possible with MFT native lenses.

--
Amateur Photographer of family mainly

Very much depends on the particular lens. Zeiss rangefinder 50mms from the 1930s–50s, along with Soviet Jupiter copies from the 1950s forward, perform better across the frame on m43 cameras than on the cameras they were made for. The lens design (Sonnar) trades off corner resolution for greater speed and higher contrast. But many other older lenses, particularly wider ones, do worse with m43 than with their native format.

-Dave-

urcindalo said:

Since a smaller sensor captures a smaller portion of the image circle projected by a lens, and since most lenses tend to loose sharpness at any given aperture as you move away from the center, does it mean a legacy full frame lens mounted on a m43 camera will produce an overall sharper image than if it were mounted on a FF camera?
In other words, will the final image be less soft at the edges, since you're cropping them out?

Click to expand...

The thing is, a given lens on FF will project a rather different scene on the sensor than the same lens on mFT, so it's a weird comparison to make right from the start. That said, let's consider some situations.

1. FF and mFT sensors with the same pixel size.

In this case, if the photo is taken from the same position with the same settings, and the FF photo is cropped to the same framing as the mFT photo, the two photos will be pretty much identical.

2. FF and mFT sensors with the same pixel count.

Assuming, again, the photos are taken from the same position with the same settings, when the FF photo is cropped to the same framing as the mFT photo, it will be pretty much identical aside from having much lower resolution.

3. FF gets closer to maintain the same framing as mFT.

In this situation, the perspectives will be different, which may be a good thing, a bad thing, or neither here nor there. If the FF photo uses the same relative aperture, it will have half the DOF. If it uses the equivalent relative aperture, the photos will have the same DOF, and the FF photo will have higher resolution if it has at least the same pixel count.

Hope this helps!

Great Bustard said:

urcindalo said:

Since a smaller sensor captures a smaller portion of the image circle projected by a lens, and since most lenses tend to loose sharpness at any given aperture as you move away from the center, does it mean a legacy full frame lens mounted on a m43 camera will produce an overall sharper image than if it were mounted on a FF camera?
In other words, will the final image be less soft at the edges, since you're cropping them out?

Click to expand...

The thing is, a given lens on FF will project a rather different scene on the sensor than the same lens on mFT, so it's a weird comparison to make right from the start. That said, let's consider some situations.

1. FF and mFT sensors with the same pixel size.

In this case, if the photo is taken from the same position with the same settings, and the FF photo is cropped to the same framing as the mFT photo, the two photos will be pretty much identical.

2. FF and mFT sensors with the same pixel count.

Assuming, again, the photos are taken from the same position with the same settings, when the FF photo is cropped to the same framing as the mFT photo, it will be pretty much identical aside from having much lower resolution.

3. FF gets closer to maintain the same framing as mFT.

In this situation, the perspectives will be different, which may be a good thing, a bad thing, or neither here nor there. If the FF photo uses the same relative aperture, it will have half the DOF. If it uses the equivalent relative aperture, the photos will have the same DOF, and the FF photo will have higher resolution if it has at least the same pixel count.

Hope this helps!

Click to expand...

if the small and the large sensor have the same pixel count, then the 50mm lens designed for FF format has a tougher life on the small sensor.

if the lens MTF for the pixel pitch of the FF sensor is, let's assume 93% contrast (10 Lp/mm) it would be somewhere at 80% contrast for the picel pitch of the small sensor (20Lp/mm). This means in order to get a similar brilliant and sharp pic on the small sensor with this FX lens, you would need to increase contrast more in photoshop, which reduces IQ.

Furthermore older FX lenses might not have the most modern lens coating ...

so, normally, if you use a good lens designed for the small sensor, you would get better results compared to using a FX lens on the small sensor.

great, note that I don ot compare image brilliance of the 50mm lens on one side with FX sensor and on the other side with crop sensor, because the angle fo view ist different, but I do compare a 50mm FX lens ith a 50mm lens designed for crop.)

BR gusti

Unlikely. What sufficed as perhaps good for film will not cut it on digital like a modern, high quality lens will. Likely no ED glass which means CA (and CA isn't just fringing, it's contrast-killing across the image) and no molded aspherical lenses which have vastly improved on spherical aberration correction. Also, coatings are better today, which further aids contrast. Some old lenses are pretty decent, and most are good stopped-down, but their image circle isn't as important as the correction of the image covering m4/3rds.

Soulhand said:

parakalien said:

In most cases a ff lens will be sharper on a ff camera due to that fact.

Click to expand...

Not sure I see this, at least if we're comparing the image cropped down to the MFT field of view.

Either the FF camera has a lesser resolution for that area (not likely, as it would need to be 64Mpixels to 80Mpixels, and most aren't) and then the sharpness is limited by that lesser resolution and wouldn't be any worse on the M43's higher resolution, or if it has the same resolution or higher resolution for that area, it has the same resolution-resolving issue as the M43 camera.

Why would it be sharper?

Click to expand...

If you're cropping the FF down to the same field of view as the MFT, you're correct. But why would you do that? You're completely tossing away the benefits of the FF sensor when you do that.

If you don't do any cropping, the FF image needs less magnification (or more reduction) to match the same final output size. Any lens induced blur will thus be proportionately smaller in the FF image.

mcabato said:

Great Bustard said:

urcindalo said:

Since a smaller sensor captures a smaller portion of the image circle projected by a lens, and since most lenses tend to loose sharpness at any given aperture as you move away from the center, does it mean a legacy full frame lens mounted on a m43 camera will produce an overall sharper image than if it were mounted on a FF camera?
In other words, will the final image be less soft at the edges, since you're cropping them out?

Click to expand...

The thing is, a given lens on FF will project a rather different scene on the sensor than the same lens on mFT, so it's a weird comparison to make right from the start. That said, let's consider some situations.

1. FF and mFT sensors with the same pixel size.

In this case, if the photo is taken from the same position with the same settings, and the FF photo is cropped to the same framing as the mFT photo, the two photos will be pretty much identical.

2. FF and mFT sensors with the same pixel count.

Assuming, again, the photos are taken from the same position with the same settings, when the FF photo is cropped to the same framing as the mFT photo, it will be pretty much identical aside from having much lower resolution.

3. FF gets closer to maintain the same framing as mFT.

In this situation, the perspectives will be different, which may be a good thing, a bad thing, or neither here nor there. If the FF photo uses the same relative aperture, it will have half the DOF. If it uses the equivalent relative aperture, the photos will have the same DOF, and the FF photo will have higher resolution if it has at least the same pixel count.

Hope this helps!

Click to expand...

if the small and the large sensor have the same pixel count, then the 50mm lens designed for FF format has a tougher life on the small sensor.

if the lens MTF for the pixel pitch of the FF sensor is, let's assume 93% contrast (10 Lp/mm) it would be somewhere at 80% contrast for the picel pitch of the small sensor (20Lp/mm). This means in order to get a similar brilliant and sharp pic on the small sensor with this FX lens, you would need to increase contrast more in photoshop, which reduces IQ.

Furthermore older FX lenses might not have the most modern lens coating ...

so, normally, if you use a good lens designed for the small sensor, you would get better results compared to using a FX lens on the small sensor.

great, note that I don ot compare image brilliance of the 50mm lens on one side with FX sensor and on the other side with crop sensor, because the angle fo view ist different, but I do compare a 50mm FX lens ith a 50mm lens designed for crop.)

Click to expand...

In my post, I was talking about the same lens being used on two different formats. However, if we are talking about two different lenses used on two different formats, then it makes even less sense to compare a 50mm on FF to a different 50mm on mFT.

That said, all said, yes, a lens designed for the smaller format will likely outperform the lens designed for the larger format. For example, the Panasonic 200 / 2.8 will outperform the Canon 200 / 2.8 when used on mFT. But, again, it would be odd to compare a 200 / 2.8 on mFT to a 200 / 2.8 on FF, but it was that odd comparison that I addressed in my post.

aljudy said:

I think saying any film legacy lens performs poorly is not true. I admit that using legacy lenses is difficult. I used them around 2011-2012 when we had very few native MFT lenses and captured some very memorable shots that still look very competitive with modern MFT glass. I have some samples in my Gallery uploaded a long time ago. See this forum for lots of samples of legacy lenses

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1065

Legacy glass is key to a lot of cinematic looking video and they are widely used by videographers. There are adapters that take FF lenses and concentrate their image circle into the MFT image circle that are awesome and produce some very unique and sweet images not possible with MFT native lenses.

--
Amateur Photographer of family mainly

Click to expand...

I'm aware of the use legacy lenses due to their magic and special properties to achieve certain effects, which may be called artistic. Ghosting, flare, swirling OOF, etc. For example, "dreamy" look is often due to veiling flare, uncorrected aberrations, or other optical flaws that sometimes can provide a special effect when used under certain conditions, similar to using vaseline or mosquito net on your lens. It can reduce contrast and it can be pleasing, but I consider them optical flaws nonetheless. I would rather start with an image with good sharpness, contrast and add effect (in PP) that are not easily readjusted than using lens with permanent imperfections.

I have played with them too, some old special lenses like the CZ Jena Pancolar, special filters from.Minolta.with little spots that scatter particular red colour frequency to enhance and soften faces based on their red colours while leaving other objects sharp, a portrait lens that was specifically designed to allow one to dial in different amounts of softness, the Tamron 75-150mm Soft, and more. I can tell you that its mostly all voodoo and hit and miss. The point is, in a scientific examination and analysis, they are just aberrations and optical flaws. I am not denying that they can look pleasing or special when you get the right conditions and settings.

Note that the title of the thread asked about sharpness, not special effect, and there could only be one answer to that IMO - No. Legarcy lenses cannot be sharper on M43. Different design, different technology and different format.

DiffractionLtd said:

Unlikely. What sufficed as perhaps good for film will not cut it on digital like a modern, high quality lens will. Likely no ED glass which means CA (and CA isn't just fringing, it's contrast-killing across the image) and no molded aspherical lenses which have vastly improved on spherical aberration correction. Also, coatings are better today, which further aids contrast. Some old lenses are pretty decent, and most are good stopped-down, but their image circle isn't as important as the correction of the image covering m4/3rds.

Click to expand...

Still, the "FF" lens used on a mft sensor will have to be much more resolving than the native mft lens would have to be, just in order to be the mft lens´s equal! Because the area used is so much smaller so it have to resolve a much higher l/mm value than it was designed for.

Yet, some very good FF lenses are enough sharp that they in practise can compete, like some of Canon´s L glass. Generally it´s another thing, though.

All this assuming we will use both lenses to achieve an end image of the same field of view.

Sergey,

Of course cheap legacy glass that was not very good in the film days is obviously not very good now.

And the top lenses from decades ago can not compete with the top lenses from 2018. But compared to "standard grade" lenses the picture is different. Even with zoom lenses. For example, the OM 85-250mm F5 from arround 1980 is sharper than the mZuiko 75-300.

Chears, Erwin

ErwinFromHolland said:

Sergey,

Of course cheap legacy glass that was not very good in the film days is obviously not very good now.

And the top lenses from decades ago can not compete with the top lenses from 2018. But compared to "standard grade" lenses the picture is different. Even with zoom lenses. For example, the OM 85-250mm F5 from arround 1980 is sharper than the mZuiko 75-300.

Chears, Erwin

Click to expand...

If we compare like with like, top glass with top glass, I am sure the old.lens will not be less sharp than an equivalent M43 lens. For example, your OM 85-250mm if compared to the 40-150mm f/2.8 probably won't be so sharp.

urcindalo said:

• urcindalo wrote:

Since a smaller sensor captures a smaller portion of the image circle projected by a lens, and since most lenses tend to loose sharpness at any given aperture as you move away from the center, does it mean a legacy full frame lens mounted on a m43 camera will produce an overall sharper image than if it were mounted on a FF camera?
In other words, will the final image be less soft at the edges, since you're cropping them out?

Click to expand...

I haven't read the whole thread so maybe I don't tell anything new, but anyway, here's my experience. I have tried some FF tele zooms on m43. With a simple adapter you just use the central part of the image circle which means that if the lens is soft at corners and edges this will be cropped out. But unless the lens is extremely sharp you don't get the centre very sharp. The result is an even sharpness all over the frame, but most often not as sharp as a native lens.

With a focal reducer of better quality, not one of the cheapest from e-bay, you concentrate the image circle a bit so it suits the small m43 sensor better but still the extreme corners are outside the frame. You gain some shapness in the centre but might loose some at the edges. And you gain one stop exposure and get a shorter focal length of course.

With the lenses I tried, which was consumer grade Tamron and Tokina FD tele zooms, the was not much to win by using them on m43 I found, except for using them with a focal reducer which transformed a 80-200/4 to a 55-140/2.8 which was a cheap way to get a tele zoom for bad light. Manual of course.

I know however there are members here who use adapted FF tele lenses on m43 with great success. But they use very sharp primes as far as I understand. A lens that is sharp enough to permit extensive cropping on FF should be sharp enough for m43.

Great Bustard said:

mcabato said:

Great Bustard said:

urcindalo said:

Since a smaller sensor captures a smaller portion of the image circle projected by a lens, and since most lenses tend to loose sharpness at any given aperture as you move away from the center, does it mean a legacy full frame lens mounted on a m43 camera will produce an overall sharper image than if it were mounted on a FF camera?
In other words, will the final image be less soft at the edges, since you're cropping them out?

Click to expand...

The thing is, a given lens on FF will project a rather different scene on the sensor than the same lens on mFT, so it's a weird comparison to make right from the start. That said, let's consider some situations.

1. FF and mFT sensors with the same pixel size.

In this case, if the photo is taken from the same position with the same settings, and the FF photo is cropped to the same framing as the mFT photo, the two photos will be pretty much identical.

2. FF and mFT sensors with the same pixel count.

Assuming, again, the photos are taken from the same position with the same settings, when the FF photo is cropped to the same framing as the mFT photo, it will be pretty much identical aside from having much lower resolution.

3. FF gets closer to maintain the same framing as mFT.

In this situation, the perspectives will be different, which may be a good thing, a bad thing, or neither here nor there. If the FF photo uses the same relative aperture, it will have half the DOF. If it uses the equivalent relative aperture, the photos will have the same DOF, and the FF photo will have higher resolution if it has at least the same pixel count.

Hope this helps!

Click to expand...

if the small and the large sensor have the same pixel count, then the 50mm lens designed for FF format has a tougher life on the small sensor.

if the lens MTF for the pixel pitch of the FF sensor is, let's assume 93% contrast (10 Lp/mm) it would be somewhere at 80% contrast for the picel pitch of the small sensor (20Lp/mm). This means in order to get a similar brilliant and sharp pic on the small sensor with this FX lens, you would need to increase contrast more in photoshop, which reduces IQ.

Furthermore older FX lenses might not have the most modern lens coating ...

so, normally, if you use a good lens designed for the small sensor, you would get better results compared to using a FX lens on the small sensor.

great, note that I don ot compare image brilliance of the 50mm lens on one side with FX sensor and on the other side with crop sensor, because the angle fo view ist different, but I do compare a 50mm FX lens ith a 50mm lens designed for crop.)

Click to expand...

In my post, I was talking about the same lens being used on two different formats. However, if we are talking about two different lenses used on two different formats, then it makes even less sense to compare a 50mm on FF to a different 50mm on mFT.

That said, all said, yes, a lens designed for the smaller format will likely outperform the lens designed for the larger format. For example, the Panasonic 200 / 2.8 will outperform the Canon 200 / 2.8 when used on mFT. But, again, it would be odd to compare a 200 / 2.8 on mFT to a 200 / 2.8 on FF, but it was that odd comparison that I addressed in my post.

Click to expand...

no,.it would not be, because exactly this was the question of the TO, whether he sould buy a FF lens for mft in order to get higher IQ compared to a native lens.

it is the FF Virus which corrupts the Brains.

clearly the mft lens is bette Ron mft than a FF lens on mft.

what do you do against being corrupted by the ff Virus?

BR gusti

mcabato said:

Great Bustard said:

mcabato said:

Great Bustard said:

urcindalo said:

Since a smaller sensor captures a smaller portion of the image circle projected by a lens, and since most lenses tend to loose sharpness at any given aperture as you move away from the center, does it mean a legacy full frame lens mounted on a m43 camera will produce an overall sharper image than if it were mounted on a FF camera?
In other words, will the final image be less soft at the edges, since you're cropping them out?

Click to expand...

The thing is, a given lens on FF will project a rather different scene on the sensor than the same lens on mFT, so it's a weird comparison to make right from the start. That said, let's consider some situations.

1. FF and mFT sensors with the same pixel size.

In this case, if the photo is taken from the same position with the same settings, and the FF photo is cropped to the same framing as the mFT photo, the two photos will be pretty much identical.

2. FF and mFT sensors with the same pixel count.

Assuming, again, the photos are taken from the same position with the same settings, when the FF photo is cropped to the same framing as the mFT photo, it will be pretty much identical aside from having much lower resolution.

3. FF gets closer to maintain the same framing as mFT.

In this situation, the perspectives will be different, which may be a good thing, a bad thing, or neither here nor there. If the FF photo uses the same relative aperture, it will have half the DOF. If it uses the equivalent relative aperture, the photos will have the same DOF, and the FF photo will have higher resolution if it has at least the same pixel count.

Hope this helps!

Click to expand...

if the small and the large sensor have the same pixel count, then the 50mm lens designed for FF format has a tougher life on the small sensor.

if the lens MTF for the pixel pitch of the FF sensor is, let's assume 93% contrast (10 Lp/mm) it would be somewhere at 80% contrast for the picel pitch of the small sensor (20Lp/mm). This means in order to get a similar brilliant and sharp pic on the small sensor with this FX lens, you would need to increase contrast more in photoshop, which reduces IQ.

Furthermore older FX lenses might not have the most modern lens coating ...

so, normally, if you use a good lens designed for the small sensor, you would get better results compared to using a FX lens on the small sensor.

great, note that I don ot compare image brilliance of the 50mm lens on one side with FX sensor and on the other side with crop sensor, because the angle fo view ist different, but I do compare a 50mm FX lens ith a 50mm lens designed for crop.)

Click to expand...

In my post, I was talking about the same lens being used on two different formats. However, if we are talking about two different lenses used on two different formats, then it makes even less sense to compare a 50mm on FF to a different 50mm on mFT.

That said, all said, yes, a lens designed for the smaller format will likely outperform the lens designed for the larger format. For example, the Panasonic 200 / 2.8 will outperform the Canon 200 / 2.8 when used on mFT. But, again, it would be odd to compare a 200 / 2.8 on mFT to a 200 / 2.8 on FF, but it was that odd comparison that I addressed in my post.

Click to expand...

no,.it would not be, because exactly this was the question of the TO, whether he sould buy a FF lens for mft in order to get higher IQ compared to a native lens.

Click to expand...

That's not how I read the OP. The OP said:

...does it mean a legacy full frame lens mounted on a m43 camera will produce an overall sharper image than if it were mounted on a FF camera?

(I also highlighted the original in bold at the top).

In other words, the OP was comparing the performance of a FF lens on FF vs the FF lens on crop.

mcabato said:

it is the FF Virus which corrupts the Brains.

clearly the mft lens is bette Ron mft than a FF lens on mft.

Click to expand...

First of all, perhaps you can explain the utility of comparing the same focal length on FF and mFT for situations when you are not focal length limited. For example, where is the utility of comparing 50mm on mFT to 50mm on FF?

mcabato said:

what do you do against being corrupted by the ff Virus?

Click to expand...

Read the OP again. He's specifically comparing the same lens on mFT and FF and asking if the lens performs better on mFT than on FF. My reply to the OP *directly* answered his question.

So, before declaring "it is the FF Virus which corrupts the Brains", doctor, heal yourself, first.

Great Bustard said:

mcabato said:

Great Bustard said:

mcabato said:

Great Bustard said:

urcindalo said:

Since a smaller sensor captures a smaller portion of the image circle projected by a lens, and since most lenses tend to loose sharpness at any given aperture as you move away from the center, does it mean a legacy full frame lens mounted on a m43 camera will produce an overall sharper image than if it were mounted on a FF camera?
In other words, will the final image be less soft at the edges, since you're cropping them out?

Click to expand...

The thing is, a given lens on FF will project a rather different scene on the sensor than the same lens on mFT, so it's a weird comparison to make right from the start. That said, let's consider some situations.

1. FF and mFT sensors with the same pixel size.

In this case, if the photo is taken from the same position with the same settings, and the FF photo is cropped to the same framing as the mFT photo, the two photos will be pretty much identical.

2. FF and mFT sensors with the same pixel count.

Assuming, again, the photos are taken from the same position with the same settings, when the FF photo is cropped to the same framing as the mFT photo, it will be pretty much identical aside from having much lower resolution.

3. FF gets closer to maintain the same framing as mFT.

In this situation, the perspectives will be different, which may be a good thing, a bad thing, or neither here nor there. If the FF photo uses the same relative aperture, it will have half the DOF. If it uses the equivalent relative aperture, the photos will have the same DOF, and the FF photo will have higher resolution if it has at least the same pixel count.

Hope this helps!

Click to expand...

if the small and the large sensor have the same pixel count, then the 50mm lens designed for FF format has a tougher life on the small sensor.

if the lens MTF for the pixel pitch of the FF sensor is, let's assume 93% contrast (10 Lp/mm) it would be somewhere at 80% contrast for the picel pitch of the small sensor (20Lp/mm). This means in order to get a similar brilliant and sharp pic on the small sensor with this FX lens, you would need to increase contrast more in photoshop, which reduces IQ.

Furthermore older FX lenses might not have the most modern lens coating ...

so, normally, if you use a good lens designed for the small sensor, you would get better results compared to using a FX lens on the small sensor.

great, note that I don ot compare image brilliance of the 50mm lens on one side with FX sensor and on the other side with crop sensor, because the angle fo view ist different, but I do compare a 50mm FX lens ith a 50mm lens designed for crop.)

Click to expand...

In my post, I was talking about the same lens being used on two different formats. However, if we are talking about two different lenses used on two different formats, then it makes even less sense to compare a 50mm on FF to a different 50mm on mFT.

That said, all said, yes, a lens designed for the smaller format will likely outperform the lens designed for the larger format. For example, the Panasonic 200 / 2.8 will outperform the Canon 200 / 2.8 when used on mFT. But, again, it would be odd to compare a 200 / 2.8 on mFT to a 200 / 2.8 on FF, but it was that odd comparison that I addressed in my post.

Click to expand...

no,.it would not be, because exactly this was the question of the TO, whether he sould buy a FF lens for mft in order to get higher IQ compared to a native lens.

Click to expand...

That's not how I read the OP. The OP said:

...does it mean a legacy full frame lens mounted on a m43 camera will produce an overall sharper image than if it were mounted on a FF camera?

(I also highlighted the original in bold at the top).

In other words, the OP was comparing the performance of a FF lens on FF vs the FF lens on crop.

Great Bustard said:

it is the FF Virus which corrupts the Brains.

clearly the mft lens is bette Ron mft than a FF lens on mft.

Click to expand...

First of all, perhaps you can explain the utility of comparing the same focal length on FF and mFT for situations when you are not focal length limited. For example, where is the utility of comparing 50mm on mFT to 50mm on FF?

Great Bustard said:

what do you do against being corrupted by the ff Virus?

Click to expand...

Read the OP again. He's specifically comparing the same lens on mFT and FF and asking if the lens performs better on mFT than on FF. My reply to the OP *directly* answered his question.

So, before declaring "it is the FF Virus which corrupts the Brains", doctor, heal yourself, first.

Click to expand...

you are rifht - the to wa sasking wehter the mft sensor would improve IQ of a FF lens ...

my advice: he should buy a mft sensor to test it.

br gusti