01-08-2017, 03:10 PM
While reading up a little more on the whole FF vs MFT debate, which IMO makes absolutely no sense, I came across two interesting blog entries by the same person.
I thought I'd share them here, they make a lot of sense, and I totally agree with them .
Part 1: <a class="bbc_url" href="http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/micro-four-thirds-vs-full-frame/">http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/micro-four-thirds-vs-full-frame/</a>
Part 2: <a class="bbc_url" href="http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/full-frame-v-micro-four-thirds/">http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/full-frame-v-micro-four-thirds/</a>
All in all, the entire debate is totally useless IMO. Different tools, for different reasons. And as I mentioned elsewhere around here, to me FF has become the new MF, and MFT is the new FF .
Oh, and F/2.8 lenses are F/2.8 lenses, whatever anyone says. Whether they are equivalent or not has nothing to do with aperture per se.
Kind regards, Wim
I thought I'd share them here, they make a lot of sense, and I totally agree with them .
Part 1: <a class="bbc_url" href="http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/micro-four-thirds-vs-full-frame/">http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/micro-four-thirds-vs-full-frame/</a>
Part 2: <a class="bbc_url" href="http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/full-frame-v-micro-four-thirds/">http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/full-frame-v-micro-four-thirds/</a>
All in all, the entire debate is totally useless IMO. Different tools, for different reasons. And as I mentioned elsewhere around here, to me FF has become the new MF, and MFT is the new FF .
Oh, and F/2.8 lenses are F/2.8 lenses, whatever anyone says. Whether they are equivalent or not has nothing to do with aperture per se.
Kind regards, Wim