[wim]

....
Besides that, the Olympus is a sharp lens of course, that is apparent. In FF terms, a sharp, slow 24-200mm f8 lens. A slow lens that weighs 239 grams less than the faster Canon 24-240mm f4-6.3 lens. A slow lens that is weather sealed, and $200 more expensive.

The last 3 lines of the above quote I was referring to.

The Canon is not a faster lens. It just has less DoF on a FF sensor that the Oly on an MFT sensor.

Kind regards, Wim

So, lets see. Saying that the Olympus "is  sharp lens of course, that is apparent" is dissing it?
And saying that in Full Frame terms, it is a sharp, slow 24-200mm f8 lens is dissing it? Or factually stating that it weighs less is dissing? Or more expensive?

In FF terms, the Canon is faster. In FF terms. Try it yourself. To use it with an FF sensor, and use it like a 24-200mm lens, you need to put a 2x TC on it. Guess what the max. f-value will be.

The odd thing is that you fall over the f8 part but not the 24-200mm part. Strange.

And are you saying that 20 years ago rap was not yet there, dude bro? "Diss" is certainly rapper lingo, it originates from Jamaican and AAVE, and has been popularised by rap culture. A bit odd that you think in terms of "disrespecting a lens", I have to say.

The word diss indeed derives from disrespect or disparage, and was originally spelt dis. First record in a dictionary dates from 1905. Those were very early rappers I guess, not-a-bro.

I am harping on about you saying it is an F/8 lens. I don’t care about the FL, as long as it is equivalent, basically in order to determine magnification and/or FoV for a specific lens/sensor combination. However, F/4 is F/4 is F/4, as only the physical aperture determines the effect of optical diffraction. An F/2 lens on a mobile phone with a 7.2 mm sensor diameter is not called an F/72 lens either, and neither does it behave like an optic at F/72 with regard to diffraction effect (at F/72 the resolution would be in the order of a few line pairs per mm).

Regards, Wim

---

Look at the prices of non-crop MF sensors, and you can start to realise why no one will come with "square sensors".

By the way, Panasonic has used some oversized sensors in some of its higher end MFT cameras, where 4x3 and 3x2 aspect ratio shooting use different "optimal" areas.

Com'on - a square-shaped "FF" sensor would only add marginal costs and it would be negligible for APS-C or MFT sensors. 

And yes, I never understood why Panasonic abandoned their multi-format sensor. I loved it.

A square shaped FF sensor would require a complete redesign of the camera and lenses, unless you’d make it a 24 mm x 24 mm sensor, we could in a sense already do that by making a crop of the FF format, however .

The camera is built for capturing a rectangular image, as is the lens (shrouds). Even so, using the same lenses with just a shroud adaptation for minimal changes would mean a 30.6 mm x 30.6 mm sensor for an area that would fit in the image circle, and have a slightly larger image area, with a crop factor of 0.92.

Kind regards, Wim