New Z 400 4.5 makes 300 Pro look porky

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
Gourownway Forum Member • Posts: 74
Re: New Z 400 4.5 makes 300 Pro look porky
7

SonyX wrote:

Gourownway wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

Gourownway wrote:

The Nikon 400 will not mount on my EM3 iii is my first thought. Second whether lighter, or more heavy I accept M4/3 for what it is. As with all systems there are some pluses and some minuses. Selecting a single issue does not make for a comparison, just a selective observation. The design considerations for different formats are not the same.

you might reasonably say, given some of the challenges of building affordable premium long lenses , the Olympus is surprisingly svelte.
personally I don’t think size or weight is too much of an issue. I like Olympus and Panasonic cameras to use. I have owned and tried Sony, Nikon, Canon and Leica cameras. Now I just shoot M4/3 and Sigma for digital and Olympus for analogue.
For me , the new Nikon lens is great for Nikon users, but otherwise a non event

This is a sensible comment and therefore has no place in this discussion.

Here we compare MFT and FF and talk about "equivalence". Any comment that concludes that a FF optic is better because of "light gathering" and "DoF" is most welcome.

And for that additional light and DoF that FF brings, the world of photography is no more exciting for me. The ratio of banal to very good or even superlative photographs seems about same as it ever was.

not only FF brings "additional light and DoF".
Some people buying 45/1.2 over 45/1.8 for the same reason and "FF" is not involved.
But on other side, lower noise or higher shutter speed might save some shots, so, it is definitely not "same as it ever was"

Another constant is that excellent images remain independent of format and gear in general. Its a personal view but rather than question our gear, we may profit more by questioning ourselves?

If you want to discuss the attributes of a digital file, I will agree things are not the same. However my point was despite the tech improving it had done nothing to improve photography. A wonderfully sharp image, devoid of noise and with an unworldly bokeh, heaps of DR and resolution does not make it a good image. Indeed you could argue that it is an aesthetic created by marketing people to sell cameras if the content offers nothing. Let’s face it very few images taken are worthy of more than a passing glance, but those that are , those are not conditional on the gear, but more o. The photographer and their ability to evoke something in the viewer .

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Dan
Yxa
Dan
Dan
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow