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
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
