photonut2008

Your OP specifically stated using the same lens and cropping the FX shot to match the DX shot. That means you are using the same center part of the lens with both cameras.

I'm deferring to Thom on that; certainly not to you. Regarding what Thom has written about the D850 sensor, and that appears to be all you have when you call him a Nikon fanboy, I have no opinion ...

I believe he has vastly more experience with handling cameras than you do, and probably more experience handling Sony cameras than you do too. Such tender feelings when someone criticizes your ...

No agenda other than to say Sony's "technological prowess " isn't unexcelled.

Straight from the keyboard of a Sony fanboy. You totally don't know what you're talking about. I knew your ilk would come out for this stuff. No brand has as many of you guys. I stand by what I ...

Why don't you read what I wrote? I wrote, "From what I've been reading Nikon's EVF delivers a better experience than Sony's," and that's entirely consistent with what I just underlined and ...

"Frankly, the Sony A7Rm3 EVF is way noisier (with larger noise patterns) and worse in natural linearity and color rendition than the Nikon Z7 in the exact same conditions. Moreover, it's been my ...

"...neither Nikon nor Canon have been able to exceed the technological prowess of Sony." Yours is a reasonable interpretation as I stopped reading after the first sentence. From what I've been ...

The way I read your post, it's 3:2 because that's what my camera uses. What aspect ratio do I choose the most? Probably the same, but it's essentially a plurality of my photos as I often start ...

Not sure, but probably not much. There are paid trolls for sure -- the OP may or may not be one -- either way I have no use for threads that start with an inflammatory and nonsensical premise.

You being paid for this fanboy trash talk?

You wrote "same lens."

Not counting "I like that one." Happy to share some with you: Shallow DOF, a fast shutter speed, and timing. Playing with perspective some here, and freezing the action. Long exposure, a relatively ...

Relax. I'm not even pushing 135 format here. I'm just discussing the point raised by the OP. Which is frankly off-topic to the OP, and yet it's the posts that dismiss equivalence or even completely ...

Then the line you draw isn't at reality but somewhere beyond that. I would suggest a different goal. Try to be faithful to communicating what you felt. While I share your distaste for overcooked or ...

You asked a question and I gave you an answer. It wasn't me you asked that question of, and I didn't say any of that. Another way of comparing the formats is f/4 to f/2, or f/2.8 to f/1.4. How many ...

It's not an unreasonable trade-off, but what you are trading is shallower DOF and better image quality, and if you want an MFT system that is equivalent to a 135 format system then the issue of ...

Will f/3.5 do? I count four current Nikkor lenses in Nikon's lineup right now (none of them actually "floating around," but no doubt quite a few out there): AF-S FISHEYE NIKKOR 8-15mm f/3.5-4.5E ED ...

Some more examples: A lens that covers a 23 degree FOV and has a 52mm diameter aperture: Taken with a lens that cost me $700; no MFT equivalent. A lens that covers a 29 degree FOV and has a 47mm ...

Did I ask you? If you don't care then don't respond. It's about shopping for a system before you buy a lens for it. Okay, so now I did look at three of those: (1) Olympus M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.8 costs $400 ...