[Sylvain]

Well, well



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1331459832' post='16546']

One point

That of the tele lenses getting bigger and heavier with bigger sensors. This is very disputable.

On a shallow glance it appears you might be right. However, you are not.



It is obvious to anyone/everyone that a 50mm f1.8 lens is smaller and lighter and cheaper than a 50mm f1.2 lens.

Both offer 50mm focal length, both offer a similar field of view with a similar sensor size. But they differ on the maximum aperture size, and subsequently differ on how much light they can let through and the depth of focus they will give at maximum aperture.



So, we look at these lenses to be of a different class.



Now what do you do? You apparently compare very low end small aperture lenses with lenses with a much bigger aperture, and blame the big lens to be... bigger. Right!



Lets look at a fact. On 4/3rds and not MFT, since MFT does not have a very wide selection of higher end lenses (yet?).

Lets take two totally equivalent tele lenses.

The Olymus 35-100mm f2, on MFT or 4/3rds, and the Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS USM on 135 format full frame.

Both have different focal ranges, which result in the same field of view ranges.

Both have the same aperture ranges (50mm aperture at 100mm and 200mm focal length respectively), resulting in similar light amounts passing through and similar depth of focus.



Which lens is bigger? The Olympus. Which lens is heavier? The Olympus. Which lens is more expensive? The Olympus.



/cut/



So that is reality... MFT is not comparable to full frame, it serves totally different markets. Full frame serves a professional and serious market with its very own advantages and very own needs and demands. MFT serves a cell phone generation market more akin to compacts and point and shoot usage, with its very own advantages and demands and needs.



[/quote]



BC, a real question -no trick here.

Would you say that granted a similar ISO sensitivity calibration, the sensor quality difference doesn't show in a linear fashion but only as you get high in the sensitivy range? I mean, ISO 100-400 on a FT sensor being (for example) almost indistinguishably close to an APS-C, only as you go higher, the gap would enlarge exponentially? (maybe not signal wise, but visibly?) If so, wouldn't the actual larger aperture of that 35-100 f/2 be an actual advantage? Only above that "close to APS-C" ISO range, would that wider aperture only compensate for the sensor shortcomings.





Just a comment on that last part, you are right on different targeted markets but your interpretation of both the FF & the MFT market isn't entirely correct IMHO. On the MFT market, it seems to me that until recently, they didn't quite know who they were marketing and how they'd spread their feature set on their cameras. It was a not so subtle mix between digicam shooters going up and DSLR shooters going down. Quite easy to spot by looking at the different line names "E-P, E-PL", "GH, GF, G". That E-M5 is interesting because it's taking a clear "premium" direction for the first time for the system, build wise (that's a start) & tech wise (although one could argue that there really isn't anything better than the GH2 minus IBIS).



Cell phone generation market? If you're not going to try any of these cameras while commenting on them abundantly, you might at least have a look at a few pictures of the bodies just to get a peek of the control layout and the available options. It says something about the marketed target. Appearances can be deceiving.



I feel I'm falling in the fanboyism trap if I have to defend or promote a system -a waste of time- but it's simply isn't true and you could still make your point without going for the partial-under-the-belt "market" analysis.



Greetings,

S.