Full-framer logic

CharlesB58 wrote:

This horse isn't just dead: it's been kicked sobmuch it's a pile of bloody goo.

The idea that mft cameras are smaller than FF is pretty obvious to the point that it no longer bears repeating yet but no one cries bloody horse goo when it is repeated.

No, the big aversion has always been to the explanation of physics that sets the record straight concerning the compromises involved in downsizing a sensor.

The codepency of this forum in attempting to wrassle with them nasty FF dudes is certainly entertaining, but does it really help people use m4/3 gear more effectively?😋

It does not, but the stated purpose of this forum is not to help people use mft gear more effectively. Anyone interested in doing so need only start a thread on the subject and discuss to their heart's content.

Robert

richshep wrote:

I find all you full fret snobs really annoying. I use a ukulele. It's small and easily pocketable. I can't play it but I can do the scales and keep it in tune.

I'm no full fret snob. I have fretted and fretless basses and I use whichever one is appropriate. I even have a violin.

Guy Parsons wrote:

ekaton wrote:

Help, I am confused. I use FF, aps-c, mft. I like all of them, for different reasons. And shamefully I must admit to even use a one incher. And now I read all these thoughtful educated threads about "mine is bigger than yours", "this is why size does not matter", or "smaller, indeed is better", and the best: "Equivalence this, equivalence that......., why F2 is not F2 and 50mm not 50mm", "dof, stops, iso cheaters,". Help, I am confused. Did I loose my identity as a photog, not knowing which size and why?

Who can help me.:-O

Simple answer is that cameras are for people who like to take photos, equivalence is for people who like to argue endlessly on forums.

It's worth noting that the person who wrote the Equivalence Essay also took these photos. I'll be kind and not link to photos taken by some who argue against Equivalence.

EDIT: I note downthread that someone else said something similar to what you said:

The "professors" need to get out and actually do some photography if they are capable; just to realise how irrelevant all that equivalence codswallop is to actual photography.

Can do. Took this one earlier today:

Does that count for "actual photography"? If so, I'm sure I'm not the only person with the remarkable ability to discuss Equivalence and do "actual photography" at the same time.  Well, maybe not at the same time, but at least on the same day.

tkbslc wrote:

I'm seeing funny and absurd comments with all the frenzy around the A9.

This thread is pretty bizarre too in places.

On the one hand we have people saying there's no way a pro would ever consider using a tiny sensor like 4/3 because it is noisy and has no DOF control. So don't even try to compare the E-M1 II to the A9.

And then on the other hand we have people trying to justify the Sony lens lineup by saying that it's fine that the only super telephoto is a 400mm f5.6, because FF high ISO is so good.

So let me get this straight, 2 stops is super important at the sensor, but irrelevant in the lenses? Makes me laugh to think of geniuses out there using f5.6 lenses on a $4500 camera at ISO 6400-12800 because 4/3 with a 40-150 f2.8 is somehow lesser grade.

Sony do seem to be lacking in luminous long lenses for this particular camera aimed at sports and action photographers.

If you need a FF camera for action then Nikon and Canon are still a better bet for lens choice and post sales backup.

I see the usual pretzel logic of equivalence has raised its ugly head after a welcome absence from this forum.

The "professors" need to get out and actually do some photography if they are capable; just to realise how irrelevant all that equivalence codswallop is to actual photography.

How about that old C2100 and C5050? - OLYs

My dogma ran over my karma

D300S ISO default limit 3200, with boost 6400. EM1 might be better

You might not want to hold a FF or ASP-C to your face for 30 minutes wiht a big lens on it. You might need a monopod, and that might be OK, but if it isn't smaller + lighter = better.