06-15-2016, 12:33 PM
Quote:My point was actually along the lines of you have to stop down a bit on large aperture lenses to get sharpness across the frame, thus removing some of the advantages of a larger sensor.
Not every picture needs "sharpness across the frame" - a main reason to spend that money on a fast lens is to isolate a subject against the "rest". If you have sharpness across the frame, you don't isolate and treat each item equally. So it's more the question "do I really need fast and heavy glass or am I happier with more DoF?" Of course, I always can stop down a f/1.4 lens but I can't step up a f/2.8. And even the f/2.8 are best at two f-stops stopped down. It might be prejudice, but most good and modern f/1.4 are better at f/2.8 than f/2.8 lenses wide open. There's a lot of exceptions to this statement...
Quote:MFT largest problem is its compared against slower speed lenses from larger formats. In this respect is looks pretty bad value wise.
To me, APS-C is a good way to go. I don't see so much weight or size reduction for APS-C ILC to Î¼4/3. Also, to me it becomes less attractive to have a body which is difficult to use because every button is so small and all are densely packed on a tiny body. Leaving not much space for an average European thumb.
Quote:I think really you have to decide what size camera your willing to carry and what resolution is required. I think this new panaleica looks great; the 25mm 1.4 produces really nice images, so if it can follow along the same lines it should be good.
I agree, I just think, the smaller the device and it's lenses is, the tighter the tolerances have to be. Because at wider apertures each Î¼m counts and makes a difference between centerred and decenterred lenses.