07-25-2016, 10:15 AM
Quote:I do think it HAS a tele advantage (together with WW-disadvantage). 50% more pixels might be less than 50% more information, but the quality will be better when compared at the same conditions (lens quality and enough light). Plus, a 1kg 100-400 zoom is much easier to hold and balance than a 3 kg 150-600 FF
OK, I need to know what WW means, Ultrawide, maybe?
You words do strike a chord! I had a hard time getting past the 16 MP density thing, but I think your information question is valid. People sometimes forget that lenses designed for a system from the ground up will be better optimized. It's never cut and dried though.
I am not as conversant with ultrawides as I am with other lengths. I have a total of one ultrawide on the APS-C format, the 10-18mm by Canon. I'm not sure who theoretically has advantage. From what I can tell in the DSLR world, the FF 11-24mm L lens is by far better than anything else. The 10-18mm STM does a credible job for 1/10 the price, but lets face it, they are not even in the same league! But would this be a stronger area for mirrorless?
Along those lines the Laowa (sp?) 15mm 1:1 macro....is an extremely compelling lens for ultimate deep depth of field. To me exciting things are happening with DSLR's. This lens can be had for a little over $400 and it opens completely new territory!
Also, Joju - you are wise to eschew complicated menus, and my personal major dislike is "special effects menus". When you need access to a setting, you don't want to send out a search party!