Clarity re: recent mirrorless BCN numbers

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
BJL Veteran Member • Posts: 9,141
Re: Clarity re: recent mirrorless BCN numbers

Abel89er wrote:

lilBuddha wrote:

Because APS-C is cheaper. And more than good enough for the vast majority of users, including many professionals.

I do belive that the same can be achieved in FF with a series of travelzoom lenses.

That does not overcome the very large cost gap: the cheapest (new model) cameras in 35mm format are about three f four tie as expensive ass basic ones in APS-C or Four Thirds format. Keeping lens size and weight close by using "equivalent" lenses (high f-stops) and so canceling out any speed or DOF control advantages is not so attractive, even if the tonal gradations and such are a bit better. And what of the many for whom an f/5.6 zoom is enough in a smaller format, all east wen wanton to travel light? No 35mm format kit can match the smallest, lightest options in the smaller formats.

-- hide signature --

Smaller lenses, better in low light, more telephoto reach:
you can have any _two_ at one time.

 BJL's gear list:BJL's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-620 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD +8 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
BJL
BJL
tko
BJL
BJL
BJL
BJL
BJL
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow