[eljamoquio]

Is ASP-C really that much better than m4/3 with regards to sensor area/benefits or are we comparing fuji trans-x to u4/3 bayler sensor ?

 

With an "equal level of technology" sensor and the same DOF, there is no difference in noise.

[eljamoquio]

However, your argument concerning lenses below is indeed only valid if you compare equivalent depth-of-field. It is not valid if you just compare equivalent zoom capabilities.

 
I can crop my aps-c or full frame sensors, though, and get the same results as the MFT.
 

at f1.4 the focal plain is so narrow that if you focus on the person's eyes the nose will be unsharp and vice versa.

 
I've heard that quote or a variation of it a lot.
 
With your K-3 + 55, at three meters distance, you'll get a waist-up portrait with a DOF of about 16cm - or 6 inches, give or take.  How big are your subjects' noses?

[Brightcolours]

You can't claim a DOF of 16cm. DOF is subjective and highly dependent on print size and viewing distance. There always is just one plane in focus, and how much of the rest seems in focus depends on the person, print size and viewing distance (and of course size of aperture and view angle captured).

[eljamoquio]

DOF is subjective and highly dependent on print size and viewing distance. There always is just one plane in focus, and how much of the rest seems in focus depends on the person, print size and viewing distance (and of course size of aperture and view angle captured).

 

Of course....?

 

 

You can't claim a DOF of 16cm.

 

And yet I did!   By any reasonable standard there is more than 2 cm of DOF.  By the most commonly used standard, there's 8 times as much.

[Brightcolours]

Of course....?

 

 

 

And yet I did!   By any reasonable standard there is more than 2 cm of DOF.  By the most commonly used standard, there's 8 times as much.

So which standard is that? 

[H. J. Simpson]

The more I think about it, the more likely it seems that Micro Four Thirds system will disappear in the coming 5-10 years just like it happened with the original Four Thirds system. With FT they've had good bodies with sensor-based IS, relatively small entry-level dslrs, excellent rugged high-end dslrs, terrific lenses.. still wasn't enough because the sensors lagged behind the competition, their serious cameras were very close in size and weight to other high-end dslrs, and top lenses were also similar in size/weight to (or even larger than) aps-c/ff top lenses.

 

And now it's all over again with MFT, yet this time they don't even have such good lenses as the FT system had. MFT managed to capture some decent market share simply because they were first on the mirrorless landscape (and there were 2 of them), and then Sony not making a lot of lenses for NEX also helped MFT.. But with more larger sensor mirrorless cameras and lenses available from other manufacturers, MFT might go extinct. Fuji and Sony APS-C cameras are about the same size as MFT cameras now, lenses are also comparable in size/weight. Even Sony's full-frame A7 is pretty much the same as E-M1/GH4, and most lenses are not that much bigger.

 

It made sense to go with MFT a couple years ago when the choice was between a huge DSLR with lots of lenses available, or a small MFT camera with decent lens line-up and relatively close to APS-C image quality. But now, with all the stuff from Fuji and Sony, MFT starts to lose its appeal. It's like Panasonic sees all this and screams "mft is still smaller!" by releasing GM1. :lol: