[obican]

Exactly how I feel about FF vs APS-C ;-)

 

Well, if you are a cheap guy like me who likes adapting old lenses to digital cameras, then FF makes a huge difference vs. APS-C .

[thxbb12]

Well, if you are a cheap guy like me who likes adapting old lenses to digital cameras, then FF makes a huge difference vs. APS-C .

 

FF is definitely not suited to my needs.

These days I mostly shoot my young daughter, so I need AF unfortunately. Additionally, since I travel fairly often, I highly value a small form factor while having the ability to use shallow DOF.

 

Today, only 2 systems fulfill these requirements: Fuji and MFT.

[Brightcolours]

FF is definitely not suited to my needs.

These days I mostly shoot my young daughter, so I need AF unfortunately. Additionally, since I travel fairly often, I highly value a small form factor while having the ability to use shallow DOF.

 

Today, only 2 systems fulfill these requirements: Fuji and MFT.

I bet that a MFT + 27.5mm f0.6 lens does not have the small form factor of my Canon EOS 6D + 55mm f1.2. 

[thxbb12]

I bet that a MFT + 27.5mm f0.6 lens does not have the small form factor of my Canon EOS 6D + 55mm f1.2. 

 

Obviously not, but you're missing the point. MFT has unique camera + lens combos. For instance:

• Oly 9-18 f3.5-5.6 : tiny UWA. Good luck finding something that small with FF. Before your bring up the DOF equivalency: sure it's only equiv. to a f7-11.2 lens. However, the aperture in this case doesn't matter a bit. If there was an equivalent FF lens then I'd definitely be interested.
  
• Oly 45 f1.8: tiny portrait lens. Sure, it's merely equivalent to a f3.6 FF lens. However: where can I find such a compact FF portrait lens? Doesn't exist. Same with the Oly 75 f1.8, etc.
  
• Pany 45-150 f3.5-5.6: tiny 300mm equiv zoom. Again, the aperture doesn't matter.
  
• etc.
  

There are tons of examples like this in both MFT and Fuji-X systems. Now, it's probably possible to make FF equivalent lenses around similar sizes. However, nobody manufactures such lenses and it looks like it's not gonna change any time soon... Hence, my sentence: 

 

Today, only 2 systems fulfill these requirements: Fuji and MFT   

[JJ_SO]

You would convince the door in a wall sooner to buy mirrorless than PZ's equivalencator  ^_^

 

Question remains how often the 55/1.2 is used at f/1.2  B)

[obican]

You would convince the door in a wall sooner to buy mirrorless than PZ's equivalencator  ^_^

 

Question remains how often the 55/1.2 is used at f/1.2  B)

 

The answer is: Whenever you'd be happy with an image so soft and low contrast, it might as well had been done with a 30$ film camera from three decades ago.

[Brightcolours]

Obviously not, but you're missing the point. MFT has unique camera + lens combos. For instance:

• Oly 9-18 f3.5-5.6 : tiny UWA. Good luck finding something that small with FF. Before your bring up the DOF equivalency: sure it's only equiv. to a f7-11.2 lens. However, the aperture in this case doesn't matter a bit. If there was an equivalent FF lens then I'd definitely be interested.
  
• Oly 45 f1.8: tiny portrait lens. Sure, it's merely equivalent to a f3.6 FF lens. However: where can I find such a compact FF portrait lens? Doesn't exist. Same with the Oly 75 f1.8, etc.
  
• Pany 45-150 f3.5-5.6: tiny 300mm equiv zoom. Again, the aperture doesn't matter.
  
• etc.
  

There are tons of examples like this in both MFT and Fuji-X systems. Now, it's probably possible to make FF equivalent lenses around similar sizes. However, nobody manufactures such lenses and it looks like it's not gonna change any time soon... Hence, my sentence: 

 

Today, only 2 systems fulfill these requirements: Fuji and MFT   

I totally agree that with a UWA zoom aperture size does not matter. I like how everybody seems to want to troll, but you never have seen me argue about that an UWA should have a big aperture or that FF is needed for UWA.

 

About the 45mm f1.8... If one is looking for a portrait prime, one is not looking for a f3.6 lens, to be honest. That someone who has a MFT camera already may consider it is another matter. There is a reason why you don't find 90mm f3.6 lenses, on FF, and also not many 150mm f3.6 lenses.

In the 1960's and 70's there used to be 135mm f3.5 lenses that were quite popular, but with photography having become more affordable and lens technology having made big strides, things have moved on.

 

With 300mm, aperture kinda always matters. People who can't afford big aperture tell themselves it doesn't matter, people who earn their money with making images, have a different perspective.

 

Your post was about shallow DOF and tiny size: "a small form factor while having the ability to use shallow DOF" hence me poking a little friendly fun at that. Your reaction was all about how aperture does not matter?

[Brightcolours]

JoJu, I only use them at f1.2. It is the whole point of those lenses. For f8 I can use any standard zoom. And I already got a mirrorless camera way before you fell off your Nikon religion and bought that Fuji and possibliy your Sigmas?  B) 

[thxbb12]

I totally agree that with a UWA zoom aperture size does not matter. I like how everybody seems to want to troll, but you never have seen me argue about that an UWA should have a big aperture or that FF is needed for UWA.

 

About the 45mm f1.8... If one is looking for a portrait prime, one is not looking for a f3.6 lens, to be honest. That someone who has a MFT camera already may consider it is another matter. There is a reason why you don't find 90mm f3.6 lenses, on FF, and also not many 150mm f3.6 lenses.

In the 1960's and 70's there used to be 135mm f3.5 lenses that were quite popular, but with photography having become more affordable and lens technology having made big strides, things have moved on.

 

With 300mm, aperture kinda always matters. People who can't afford big aperture tell themselves it doesn't matter, people who earn their money with making images, have a different perspective.

 

Your post was about shallow DOF and tiny size: "a small form factor while having the ability to use shallow DOF" hence me poking a little friendly fun at that. Your reaction was all about how aperture does not matter?

 

1) Shallow DOF

I agree that f3.6 is not very sexy in the FF world. However, it might be sufficient for many people. I still believe it's a good portrait option. Now, there is shallow DOF and shallow DOF. If one wants razor thin DOF, FF is the only way to go. However, not every portrait photographer will shoot their FF lenses at f1.4 or f1.8 and f3.6 might be totally fine. Compared to regular slow zooms, a tiny 90mm f3.6 is very attractive. I still believe quite a few photographers would be interested in a small 90mm or 150mm f3.6 lenses for FF. If you want more shallow, the Fuji 35mm f1.4 + a X-T10 body offers something that simply doesn't exist in the FF world. The Fuji 18mm f2 is minuscule and the 14 f2.8 is also very small while being bright. Again, nothing matches those in FF. And don't forget to take the dimensions of the whole package.

 

2) Long zooms

I wasn't talking about pro photographers taking wildlife shots. Of course, these need >= 400mm f2.8 or f4 lenses and they don't care much about size/weight. I was thinking more about people who need reach for travel, landscape, and occasional wildlife shots. In this context a f4-5.6 MFT zoom is totally fine. The paramount here is portability. In the FF world there is simply nothing small that covers the range > 100mm. Again, FF doesn't have anything that covers the 300mm range that's close to the Panasonic 45-150mm, regardless of the aperture.

[JJ_SO]

Let's see: Introduction to the market of the M3 was April 2015. At that time I had the DP1 Merrill for almost a year and you got yours second hand. Sorry, you lost. May 2014: Arrival of DP3 M, May 2015 DP2 M completed the trio.

 



 

First Fuji was around NewYear 2016, with the firmware 4.00. BC, You lost again, because it's only a tiny Canon.  And btw. the EVF was onboard of the Fuji. I didn't have to buy an additional EVF-DC1  That's so sweet.... and the electronic shutter is very silent, maybe someone told you? No? Pity.