Great Bustard wrote:
I'm glad you've come here, yet again, to pester people about FF equivalence and why m4/3 is not the same as FF. Thank you all for reminding us that m4/3 is not the same as FF. I'm sure we'd all forgotten in your absence.
I'm glad you've pointed out that Oly have made a supertele zoom that's useless because it's way to slow (as per FF equivalence).
I promise never to post images like these again. I now understand that my tools are useless and cannot produce quality photos.
I will now go and purchase an FF camera so I can sneer down my nose at those small sensor peasants with their noisy images and slow lenses.
...it's not quite as you say:
- Equivalence says nothing about shallow DOF being superior to deep DOF, as this is entirely subjective.
- Equivalence makes no claims whatsoever about which system is superior to another system, especially given that there are so many aspects about systems that Equivalence does not address. For example, in terms of IQ, Equivalence says nothing about bokeh, moiré, distortion, color, etc., and in terms of operation, Equivalence says nothing about AF, build, features, etc. In fact, Equivalence can even work against larger sensor systems by denying them their "noise advantage" when they need to match both the DOF and shutter speed of smaller sensor systems.
More to the point, you can get outstanding photos with any current system, including a cellphone.
Oh, by the way -- these were taken with a compact:
Not too shabby, eh?
Correct, and if forpetessakes was simply trying to explain the term, or do something other than troll with it, then this thread would not exist. That's probably also why all his comments in the other thread we're deleted. My post is appropriate when in context.
Super!!! Which lens did you use ?
Very very good!
I used the 4/3s Olympus 70-300.
|Short-eared Owl by bryand7k|
from Best photo of the week...
|Happy girl! by Dutch Newchurch|
from Wide angle