Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
MFT vs FF - informative
#1
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 Smile.


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 Wink.

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. Wink


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


Messages In This Thread
MFT vs FF - informative - by wim - 01-08-2017, 03:10 PM
MFT vs FF - informative - by JJ_SO - 01-09-2017, 11:47 AM
MFT vs FF - informative - by wim - 01-09-2017, 11:08 PM
MFT vs FF - informative - by JJ_SO - 01-10-2017, 12:51 AM
MFT vs FF - informative - by wim - 01-10-2017, 12:32 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)