What you call "picking a fight", I call giving a context to one's opinions. 'Course, depending on the opinions one holds, and how those opinions compare and contrast with the photos and the measurements, one could see why some might call providing a context "picking a fight".
True.
Well, there is that business about noise in low light and captured detail, but, I suppose, both of these depend on what the "practical purposes and print sizes" are.
What is the advantage of f/1.4 1/100 ISO 100 on mFT over f/2.8 1/100 ISO 400 on FF? How about f/1.4 1/400 ISO 100 on mFT compared to f/2.8 1/100 ISO 100 on FF?
The vision behind the person behind the camera, equipment means nothing.
no they are not.
Because it is much much cheaper to do so.
Yes and no. For critical use, one would go after better lens, for example I do not use 24-85's 85 end for portrait, I buy a 85 F1.8. But for less critical use, where i just want a lens that will give me high standard of IQ, no need to for super high standard, I settle for a cheaper lens - for example, for 24mm and 35mm, I am quite happy relying on the 24-85.
That is a misconception. FF gives you the option to shoot at wider and narrower DOF, that in itself is an advantage. but when you shoot at wider DOF (stopping dow), you do not necessarily have to raise ISO. in the end that you do raise ISO, IQ is still on par with m43. For example D600's ISO400 is abut as good as g5's iso100.
While for most people, a system means one body plus a number of lenses. so if every lens cost more to obtain the same IQ, overall system cost is likely to be higher too.
But if you look at D7000 and vs D800 and D600, sensor size is 2.25 times smaller but DR is less than half a stop less. when compared to Sony RX1 and A99, DR is pretty much the same.
As I said, DR is only one of the several metrics that constitute DR.
I don't know what "most people" have, but, for sure, the more lenses you own, then more important the size, weight, and price of the lenses become in relation to the camera, for the system as a whole.
That's what I'm saying -- DR depends strongly on sensor efficiency. However, more than that, two systems with the same DR doesn't mean the same IQ. Instead, the same DR means that detail can be resolved in the same number of levels, but the quality of that detail will depend on other factors.
???
Ulti, I am around tourists in this tropical paradise in which I live -- you can pretty much pick out the serious photographers, just the handful of them, some with FF, some with smaller formats, some with super zooms, me with m43!
It is not a fair comparison as the Canon is a lot larger and heavier.
That lens is in a completely lower category of quality and sealing. It is also considerably larger as well.
Neither my E3 nor my 5D2 are particularly inconspicuous. They are in fact much the same size. The E-4x0 series were cute little cameras, though. Oly was on the right track there, I think.
Yet it was a lot cheaper to add a stabilized 300/4 to my 5D2 than it would have been to add a 150/2 to my E3. And I mean including what I paid for the bodies. But you meant the other way around, I know. I wish you were right, but you unfortunately aren't in the general case. The good 4/3 lenses are typically neither particularly small nor particularly cheap (to the extend you can even get them anymore :-()
size and weight is not part of the comparison.
sealing maybe, but how many people have a sealed m43 body to begin with?
Please remember we are not comparing general pros and cons.
dude are you high? that link you posted is for 12-35. Do your home work.
Because it is not cheap. But it is cheaper than M43 for the same IQ.
Not it doesnt. body cost triple or quadruple, yes, but by the time you buy the 3rd or 4th lens the cost could well be even.
We all pay the same price (more or less) for the same product, the only difference is what we choose to buy. if you buy exactly what I buy, you are in for some saving too.
Let me begin by asking this simple question - How do you know they are FF? not just APS-C? do you check the model number on every one of them?Hen3ry wrote:
Ulti, I am around tourists in this tropical paradise in which I live -- you can pretty much pick out the serious photographers, just the handful of them, some with FF, some with smaller formats, some with super zooms, me with m43!
BUT most of the camera toters have FF. They just hang around their necks. When they get to the designated look out or event, they take one picture, then the mighty FF hangs around their necks again.
They are photographic lemmings, they have been sucked into the myth that "real" photographers use FF to get top quality so if they have FF and the right brand, they will get the best pictures too. They wouldn’t know a really good pic if it bit them on the bum!
BUT they have their FF SLR -- mostly Canikon.
I am certainly not advocating FF is the best system for every use and every one. I completely understand that many people prefer smaller systems and agree with them that that is what they should use. But the point here is majority FF owners are experienced shooters, and the proportion of lemmings among them is far less than any other group, sales figure proves this.
But today, mirrorless is pretty much the normal, many people buy them because store sales encourage them to buy mirrorless over likes of Canon G12. they are as lemmings as they get.
