• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

MFT vs FF - informative


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,006 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 08 January 2017 - 04:10 PM

While reading up a little more on the whole FF vs MFT debate, which IMO makes absolutely no sense, I came across two interesting blog entries by the same person.

I thought I'd share them here, they make a lot of sense, and I totally agree with them :).

Part 1: http://lindsaydobson...-vs-full-frame/
Part 2: http://lindsaydobson...ro-four-thirds/

All in all, the entire debate is totally useless IMO. Different tools, for different reasons. And as I mentioned elsewhere around here, to me FF has become the new MF, and MFT is the new FF ;).
Oh, and F/2.8 lenses are F/2.8 lenses, whatever anyone says. Whether they are equivalent or not has nothing to do with aperture per se. ;)

Kind regards, Wim

#2 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,730 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 09 January 2017 - 12:47 PM

First, I appreciate you were not just putting links into the forum but also bothered  to point out why you did so. I hardly ever follow a link which someone throws in without a comment.

 

Second, I also think debates about size (of cameras) are typically male discussions, but why not? The girls have their shoe discussions or never know what to wear even if they have to use a bicycle to come form one end of the wardrobe to the other.

 

She at least is wrong in one tiny aspect, which is file size: My Fuji X-T2 produces bigger RAW-files with only 24 MP than the D810 with 36 MP. Why? The RAW converter programmers announce support for compressed Fuji RAW which was already available for Nikon shortly after it's introduction. SO, if the discussio would be only about that, I'd have to trash the Fuji.

 

And third, she put sensor size into the DoF equation. Doing that and forgetting output size makes not much sense.

 

Fourth, she says not to be posh  ^_^ in another article

 

 

Lastly, my third cousin the Duchess of Cambridge produced an heir to the throne this summer – it’s a strange feeling to be related to the future Queen, and of course a future King

 Right, this is not posh at all as is the Prosche in the driveway.

 

Nonetheless I like the approach of dismanteling FF, most of the time it is not worth the backpain. And her general statement "take the tool your hands are happy to hold".

 

So, in the last aspect big hands need big buttons/grips/dials? Makes sense to me. Flimsy buttons are not ranking high for me. 



#3 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,006 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 10 January 2017 - 12:08 AM

She may well be wrong in some aspects, but take the tools your hands are happy to hold can be read metaforically.

I have big hands, and I shoot both Canon FF and MFT .... :)
What does that say? :)

Kind regards, Wim

#4 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,730 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 10 January 2017 - 01:51 AM

Big hands or big fingers?  :D

 

Anyway, a friend of me has small hands and fingers but she manages always to push some buttons without intention. Honestly I only touched OM cameras when in display, I never used one.



#5 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,006 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 10 January 2017 - 01:32 PM

:D

 

Glove size is XXXLand XXXXL, depending on manufacturer, but then, my hands (and feet) are relatively wide, not necessarily as long as that full size. :)

 

I have shot all kinds of small, fiddly cameras, never really had a problem with cameras the size of the Olympus or Panansonic, but my main cameras when shooting analog were a Pentax ME, ME Super and MX for many years. It didn't really get smaller from an slr POV :).

 

I really like the implementation of the touch screens, BTW. If you'd want, everything is literally under finger tip control on the touch screen.

 

BTW, for me one of the reasons to go for MFT rather than a larger format, is that from my perspective there had to be a distinctive difference in size and weight between my up till recently main camera system, and a smaller system. To me APS-C felt just as a too small step in that regard, and I personally was never really convinced by most of the Canon EF-S lenses either, from an image rendering POV, which immediately means heavier and bigger lenses as well.

 

Quality of the images from MFT is plentiful, and better than ever, so that was never a problem for me. And size wise I just love it. Where before I had a single body plus 3 to 5 lenses with me wherever I went, which really weighed me down, I now have two bodies plus 7, 8, 9 lenses, and the combo weighs a lot less than the FF setup. I still shoot FF, but that means I really am going on a photoshoot; I don't carry the stuff with me everywhere I go anymore.

 

I am back to my analog Pentax days, weight wise, lighter even, with more equipement ;).

 

Kind regards, Wim






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de