09-23-2019, 06:43 PM
(09-23-2019, 05:41 PM)thxbb12 Wrote:(09-23-2019, 04:53 PM)Brightcolours Wrote:(09-23-2019, 04:27 PM)mike Wrote: This conversation has kind of morphed... IMO, I don't see a need to look through the lens. I've actually learned to prefer the evf. It seems more in tune to what the final image will look like. Plus, I like the 100% view.
Then there are horses for courses. Last night I was taking shots with an MFT that would be super difficult with a dslr. First, the flip out touchscreen monitor set to focus where I touched was indispensable. Second, how close I could get the the camera to the subject and dof I wanted would have been difficult without a tripod for APSC and FF. I was shooting cactus, so even getting to the shot I wanted was precarious. Trying to get a tripod in there and looking through a viewfinder.. yikes!
When I was still using my last iteration of canon gear (1dx and rebel) I still carried around a decent quality digital P&S for situations like these.
You can get the EXACT same DOF with APS-C and FF, when using equivalent settings. Not sure why you think you can't. Using equivalent lenses also means the same shooting distance with the same subject size in the printed image.
On OVF, I like to see the world and not the computer interpreting/deciding it for me, when trying to find the angle that inspires. The "final image" is a combination of my imagination, the camera capturing the moment, and my post processing. OVF offers me the possibility of a creative process that EVF and live view can not give.
And that flipout screen? Are you sure you can't get that in DSLR form? Of course my DSLR also offers liveview, when needed.
About no tripod.. I almost never use a tripod (only when needed).
It is fine for you to like your MFT and its EVF, of course. But someones has to wonder about the weird arguments given.
Indeed, one can get exact same DOF and shutter speed with FF or APS-C by simply raising the ISO. A common misconception from MFT users is that they think that it's an advantage to be able to shoot at base ISO (say 200) while benefiting from a larger DOF than FF (or APS-C). What they don't realize is that you will get the same DOF with FF at ISO 800 and you will end up with the same SNR (Signal-to-Noise Ratio)...
Anyway, I see one benefit to MFT that has no match in other systems: ridiculously effective stabilization allowing one to shoot in circumstances requiring a tripod with other systems (a good example of this is a Olympus E-M1 mkII with the Oly 300m f4 or Oly 12-100 f4).
And of course there is the size of equivalent lenses that don't exist elsewhere. A good example of this is the Olympus 60mm f2.8 macro lens. It's really tiny. It doesn't extend and it's got great IQ. Macro lenses in FF or APS-C land are huge and f2.8 which is silly IMO. Sure, this Olympus is equivalent to a 120mm f5.6 FF (or 80mm f3.7 in APS-C), but such equivalent lenses simply doesn't exist and this equivalent aperture is perfectly suited to shooting macro where one needs as much DOF as possible.
Thanks guys, that's Unbelievable. I would have never guessed that you can get nearly the same image with different formats! Hallelujah