A Comparison of MFT and APS-C Systems

SonyX wrote:

As you know I am ignoring you because in my experience, your intent is to argue and not a good-faith discussion. However I am going to reply to just this one counter your misinformation ...

faunagraphy wrote:

Of all the systems, it's the only one whose sensor was designed from the get-go for digital photography. Its sensor size and proportions are unique.

"Before flat-screen TVs, 4:3 was that standard aspect ratio. After all, it was based on the shape of a classic 35 mm strip of film, which was the mass-produced film of choice on the market at the time."

I was clearly referring to digital sensors. Read. Secondly, the 4:3 film was replaced by 3:2 35mm film in the 1950s for wide-aspect movie-making, not with flat-screen TV's. The 4/3 aspect ratio comes from older cameras which shot vertical frames with 3:4 (width:height) film. 3:4 offers flexiblity in framing for vertical shots. Cut a 3:4 film in half horizontally, and you end up with the 3:2 proportions used on later 35mm film and now on full frame / APS-C sensors.

Speaking of ignoring practical considerations - that's how you end up with comparisons such as "Canon RF 800mm f11 gathers the same light as a 300mm Pro + MC-14".

Sigma 150-600 is a zoom lens with a focusing distance of 0.58m
300mm has MDF of 1.4m, "limiting its utility for bird photography"

Here you go with your absurd, bad faith arguments again.

There are tons of situations where a subject e.g. a small bird will be closer than the 6m (19+ feet) MFD of the RF 800mm. So yes, its utility for small wildlife is indeed limited by its MFD. Show me where a bird comes closer than 1.4 meters, and you will be showing me a tame bird.

Yes, and the RF lens also causes terrible autofocus issues in low light because it's f11. And it cannot focus on anything closer than six frickin' yards, limiting its utility for bird photography. Just one of many examples where light gathering or subject separation is a secondary consideration.

Heck, it might even decide what system you choose - the Nikon S 400mm f2.8 looks pretty appealing thanks to its built-in TC. And if you purchase it, you probably won't be buying an OM-1 just for ProCapture.

The Z 9/8 both have Pre-Release Burst

Which is JPEG-only, at 30 fps for full res JPEG and 60/120 fps for low-res JPEGs. Olympus ProCapture records in RAW - at 50 fps in case of the OM-1.

And yet the fact remains that if someone purchases a Z8/9, they will not purchase a OM-1 simply for RAW files in ProCapture. Instead, they will make-do the JPEG-only Pre-Release Burst on their Nikon. Which was the point I was making. Try to read.

But if you do not have $13k and do not want to carry a 7 lb lens no matter how good it is,

than Nikkor 400/4.5 would be just ok

Really? Going by your trollingpost history, the Nikkor 400mm f4.5 should be a garbage lens because the f2.8 lens can be stopped down to f4.5 but the f4.5 cannot shoot at f2.8? What happened? Is practicality e.g. cost/weight only a benefit if the lens is made by Nikon/Sony and not OM/Panasonic?

With a lighter lens and better IBIS, you can always step a bit to one side, or crouch, and create a compelling photo with a blurry background. I say this as someone who owns a 300mm f2.8 but has replaced it with the 300mm Pro for nearly everything.

the key word is ...

As a matter of fact, DOF / subject isolation is never a factor when I choose my 300mm f2.8 lens over my 300mm Pro.

I mostly use it (on rare occasions) for low-light shooting with a Speed Booster at 210mm f2 where my 135mm f2 isn't long enough. A 5 lb lens is no fun to carry, unless it's unavoidable.

I also use it for telephoto infrared because Pro lenses cut out a lot of IR light. I would happily have used Panasonic or cheaper Olympus lenses for infrared photos if I still owned any that extend to 300mm or more.

Do not argue with me about how I use my gear.

My point is that M43 does not need to match FF for everything. Note that when equivalence champs compare M43 to FF, they pick and choose the brand (Sony/Canon/Nikon) depending on which one has something "better" than M43.

lets stick to the one brand only - Sony MLS system is closer to the "age" of m43, than other brands
70-200 - 70-300 - 50-400 - 100-400 - 150-500 - 150-600 - 200-600 - 60-600 zoom lenses

Alright, let's use your "equivalence" logic here: why should anyone buy the 150-500mm, 150-600mm, or 200-600mm if the 60-600mm exists? After all they have similar apertures and the 60-600mm has a greater focal range.

So having options in terms of weight, size, build quality, cost, IQ etc. is a good thing if E-Mount offers it, but not for M43?

Marvelous hypocrisy!

300-400-500-600 primes

Why even have a 600mm lens if a 400mm lens can be cropped to 600mm proportions? Applying your own logic here ...

After all, you have said numerous times that Sony cameras are superior because their sensors can be cropped to 20 MP for more "reach".

pls tell me more about ""

This is my first and last reply to you here. Toodles! 👋