08-24-2016, 01:53 PM
Well, it's all just theoretical. In practice it's simply not the case as Klaus has shown in the article. To quote what I wrote in the comment section of the article:
"the most important aspect is that most lenses in APS-C and MFT land don't have FF equivalent, hence the size gain: Fuji 18 f2, Pana 14 f2.5, Oly 12 f4, Oly 17 f1.8, Oly 25 f1.8, Oly 45 f1.8, Pany 12-32 f3.5-5.6, Oly 9-18 f4-5.6, Fuji 18-55 f2.8-4, Fuji 14 f2.8, etc. It would be perfectly possible to have similarly small FF lenses if there were such equivalent lenses (28 f3, 28 f5, 24 f8, etc.) but I highly doubt it will ever happen. From a marketing point of view, manufacturers would have a tough time convincing customers a 24-64 f7-12 lens or a 24 f8 is sexy despite the size gain... So, if one doesn't mind the loss in DOF control and is happy with the smaller sensor IQ, then smaller systems make a lot of sense. Even with MFT, from a pure IQ point of view, we've reach the "good enough quality" a long time ago already."
"the most important aspect is that most lenses in APS-C and MFT land don't have FF equivalent, hence the size gain: Fuji 18 f2, Pana 14 f2.5, Oly 12 f4, Oly 17 f1.8, Oly 25 f1.8, Oly 45 f1.8, Pany 12-32 f3.5-5.6, Oly 9-18 f4-5.6, Fuji 18-55 f2.8-4, Fuji 14 f2.8, etc. It would be perfectly possible to have similarly small FF lenses if there were such equivalent lenses (28 f3, 28 f5, 24 f8, etc.) but I highly doubt it will ever happen. From a marketing point of view, manufacturers would have a tough time convincing customers a 24-64 f7-12 lens or a 24 f8 is sexy despite the size gain... So, if one doesn't mind the loss in DOF control and is happy with the smaller sensor IQ, then smaller systems make a lot of sense. Even with MFT, from a pure IQ point of view, we've reach the "good enough quality" a long time ago already."