[JJ_SO]

Yes, I am fully aware of the fact that it is really a 15 mm FF equivalent, and so is the aperture, from a DoF POV. However, the 15 mm F/4 Laowa is a completely different animal, being an UWA macro lens, so IMO, the 7.5 mm F/2 MFT Laowa currently comes closest to the 10 mm F/2.8 FF Laowa, as an UWA lens. Ideally one would liek to have a 5 mm lens obviously, as that has teh same AoV on MFT as the 10 mm on FF. Also, th e15 F/4 is not all that great, IMO, but the 7.5 actually is, as is the 10 mm FF .

...

Sorry Wim, no one was referring to a Laowa Macro lens. There are many other options for 15/4 FF lenses, some of them need to be stopped down. I agree the 15/4 Laowa is not great, the shift option is a joke and the handling is according to it's price (compared to serious shift lenses)

 

As to the equivalence bit, it is about time that people start realizing it is utter nonsense. It is all about shooting with the gear that is appropriate, for whatever reasons, and equivalence is only good fro showing the limits of systems rather than establishing whether one is better or not. There is a reason why there are so many different hammers in existence, from sledgehammer to the tiniest hammer for nails of 1 cm and less: it allows the selection of the right hammer for the job. The same is true for cameras. However, let me stop my rant here .

 

Kind regards, Wim

 

I agree, comparing different systems and creating "equivalence" simply doesn't work. It only would work, if everything could be scaled the same way, but pixel densities (as well as pixel arrays: X-Trans and Foveon sensor also are APS-C, not just the normal Bayer patterns), lens tolerances, noise behaviour (and strategies to minimize noise) are not enlarged the same way.